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

[Tom Gundersen]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek at in.waw.pl> wrote:
> 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

Thanks Zbigniew,

So this looks really nice. Looking through it I see a bug in the
logic, but that was not your fault, so I can just fix that on top.
Please push.

FTR, instead of

return strv_fnmatch(dev_name, match_names, 0);

we should have

if (!strv_fnmatch(dev_name, match_names, 0))
       return false;

So that we only return true at the very end once all the conditions
have been checked.

Cheers,

Tom