[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Add helper for fnmatch over strv

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:20:21PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:12:38PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14.02.15 00:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek at in.waw.pl) 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?
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-February/028350.html

Zbyszek