On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 16:14 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:18:20PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Fri, 2024-11-15 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > > > > I'm not completely happy with the MAPINFO_ID_IF_FOUND flag. An > > > alternative would be to run a second libmp_mapinfo() call without > > > MAPINFO_MPATH_ONLY to grab the name, if the first failed with > > > DMP_EMPTY. > > > If people think that's a better way to solve this, I can rework > > > those > > > patches. > > > > We could simply choose to always fill in this information if the > > the caller has requested it, without an additional input flag. It's > > not > > an expensive operation. Is there a reason not to do this? > > Your comments in the code said that libmp_mapinfo() will not touch > any > of the output parameters if it doesn't succeed. I didn't audit the > code, > but I can certainly imagine a situation where you passed in pointers > to > some varaibles that already had values and you didn't want those > values > overwritten unless libmp_mapinfo() returned DMP_OK. > > But I can go look and see if any callers would get messed up if name > or > uuid got set, even when the found device didn't match. I am pretty sure that that shouldn't happen. The memory must be allocated anyway, and callers can't ignore the return value. But double-checking is a good idea, of course, and we should adapt the documentation. Martin
