> On 07 Apr 2017, at 14:03, Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Update all functions that are going to be moved into a reusable module
> so that they only work with the reusable data structures. Move code
> that is specific to the filter out into the filter specific functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Peart <benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> convert.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/convert.c b/convert.c
> index f569026511..747c0c363b 100644
> --- a/convert.c
> +++ b/convert.c
> @@ -576,14 +576,15 @@ static void stop_multi_file_filter(struct child_process *process)
> finish_command(process);
> }
>
> -static int start_multi_file_filter_fn(struct cmd2process *entry)
> +static int start_multi_file_filter_fn(struct subprocess_entry *subprocess)
> {
> int err;
> + struct cmd2process *entry = (struct cmd2process *)subprocess;
I wonder if a "subprocess_entry" should rather have a generic data pointer
for any extra information. However, this is probably bikeshedding and I think
this solution is equally good.
> struct string_list cap_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> char *cap_buf;
> const char *cap_name;
> - struct child_process *process = &entry->subprocess.process;
> - const char *cmd = entry->subprocess.cmd;
> + struct child_process *process = &subprocess->process;
> + const char *cmd = subprocess->cmd;
>
> sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
>
> @@ -638,17 +639,21 @@ static int start_multi_file_filter_fn(struct cmd2process *entry)
> return err;
> }
> ...
> static int apply_multi_file_filter(const char *path, const char *src, size_t len,
> @@ -692,9 +698,13 @@ static int apply_multi_file_filter(const char *path, const char *src, size_t len
> fflush(NULL);
>
> if (!entry) {
> - entry = start_multi_file_filter(cmd);
> - if (!entry)
> + entry = xmalloc(sizeof(*entry));
> + entry->supported_capabilities = 0;
If we would use a generic data pointer then we could initialize
supported_capabilities in "start_multi_file_filter_fn".
Apart from the bike shedding above this patch looks good to me.
Minor nit: It breaks t0021 "invalid process filter must fail (and not hang!)"
test case but I assume this is corrected in a later patch.
Cheers,
Lars