On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:12:38PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Sat, 14.02.15 00:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) >> wrote: >> >> > No functional change intended. >> >> I like this simplification! >> >> > >> > if (match_host && !condition_test(match_host)) >> > return false; >> > @@ -117,49 +112,17 @@ bool net_match_config(const struct ether_addr >> > *match_mac, >> > if (match_mac && (!dev_mac || memcmp(match_mac, dev_mac, >> > ETH_ALEN))) >> > return false; >> > >> > - if (!strv_isempty(match_paths)) { >> > - if (!dev_path) >> > - return false; >> > + if (!strv_isempty(match_paths)) >> > + return strv_fnmatch(dev_path, match_paths, 0); >> >> Can't this be shortened further by combining the stv_isempty() with >> the strv_fnmatch? > This code is changed in 2/3. I believe it is broken in the original > version (and after the change above, which does not change functionality). > > >> > +bool strv_fnmatch(const char *s, char* const* patterns, int flags); >> > + >> > +static inline bool strv_fnmatch_or_empty(const char *s, char* const* >> > patterns, int flags) { >> > + assert(s); >> > + return strv_isempty(patterns) || >> > + strv_fnmatch(s, patterns, flags); >> > +} >> >> Wouldn't the order of arguments be more natural if we specified the >> strv ("haystack") first, and the string ("needle") second? After all, >> it's kinda an OO interface, where the first object should come first? > Yeah, like strv_find and friends. I'll do that. > >> Anyway, this all looks like a great simplification. If this doesn't >> change behaviour I love the idea, please apply! > I'll wait for some feedback on 2/3 from Tom.
Hm, I haven't received these patches (yet?), care to point me at a public branch instead? Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
