Re: [PATCH 4/6] progressmeter: protect with a mutex

[Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito]

> > > We don't have caller that pass only one pointer. So we can just do
> > >
> > > *current = pm->current;
> > > *total = pm->total;
> > >
> > > implicitly requiring both pointers to be non NULL.
> >
> > Is it so performance critical that we need to skip these safety checks?
> > IMHO we can keep it as it is.
>
>
> Not performance. It's just less code. You propose more complex interface 
> (pointers may be valid pointers or NULL), implemented by more complex 
> code (extra if blocks). And there no users for this. So, I don't see any 
> reason for extra logic and code lines.
>
> What kind of safety you want? All current callers pass non-zero 
> pointers, it's obvious. If someone will create new call, he should look 
> first at function itself, not blindly pass NULL pointers. And if not, he 
> will get clean crash on zero pointer dereference.

Ok, makes sense. Will remove the ifs.

Thank you,
Emanuele