On 7/10/19 7:40 PM, Honggang Li wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Honggang Li <honli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> srp_daemon/srp_daemon.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.c b/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.c
> index a004f6a4..f27dd569 100644
> --- a/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.c
> +++ b/srp_daemon/srp_daemon.c
> @@ -349,10 +349,11 @@ static int is_enabled_by_rules_file(struct target_details *target)
> int rule;
> struct config_t *conf = config;
>
> - if (NULL == conf->rules)
> + if (NULL == conf->rules) {
> + pr_debug("SRP target with id_ext %s allowed by rules file\n", target->id_ext);
> return 1;
> + }
How about changing that message into e.g. "Allowing SRP target with
id_ext %s because not using a rules file"?
> + pr_debug("SRP target with id_ext %s %s by rules file\n",
> + target->id_ext,
> + conf->rules[rule].allow == 1 ? "allowed" : "disallowed");
> return conf->rules[rule].allow;
Is the "== 1" part necessary?
Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
