[systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/3] [RFC]sd-bus: remove some dead code

[David Herrmann]

Hi

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Philippe De Swert
<philippedeswert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17/09/14 00:49, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:27 PM,  <philippedeswert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Philippe De Swert <philippedeswert at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> The r < 0 test has been done before we reach it in the loop, and we returned
>>> out of the function. So this cannot be reached. But it could actually be that
>>> something is missing.
>>> ---
>>>  src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c | 2 --
>>>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>>> index 81c840f..48054da 100644
>>> --- a/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>>> +++ b/src/libsystemd/sd-bus/bus-objects.c
>>> @@ -1180,8 +1180,6 @@ static int process_get_managed_objects(
>>>                          if (require_fallback && !c->is_fallback)
>>>                                  continue;
>>>
>>> -                        if (r < 0)
>>> -                                return r;
>>
>> Ugh, no, there is something seriously wrong. I looks like there used
>> to be a method call just before the "if (r < 0)". Or at least there
>> was supposed to be a method call, otherwise this really doesn't make
>> any sense.
>
> Indeed, that's why I put it as a RFC and mentioned that it seems
> something is missing ;)
>
>> I tracked it down to:
>>
>> commit 29ddb38fea134c6132e4f2dd608e9da3871eaebe
>> Author: Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net>
>> Date:   Wed Oct 9 02:37:10 2013 +0200
>>
>>     libsystemd-bus: add lightweight object vtable implementation for
>> exposing objects on the bus
>>
>>
>> However, there never seemed to be any method call. I'm putting Lennart
>> on CC as I have no idea what that things was supposed to do. He's on
>> vacation, though, so it may take a while to resolve.
>
> Not a problem. My intention was to get some eyes on this that might know
> what the intention might have been. So it already has had the result I
> wanted.

Ok, I pushed some code that refactors the object-manager
implementation. This also drops the dead-code you mentioned, so I
think this is solved.

Thanks
David