On 8/16/17 4:11 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 8/15/17 10:08 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
>>> Save exactly what the user gave us for every option. This way, we will
>>> never lose the information if we need it to print back an issue.
>>> (Just add the infrastructure now, used in the next patches.)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Sorry for not getting to the V1 review, catching up from a week off.
>
> I hope you enjoyed your holiday. :-)
...
>>> +static char *
>>> +get_conf_raw_safe(const struct opt_params *opt, const int subopt)
>>> +{
>>> + char *str;
>>> +
>>> + str = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + if (get_conf_raw(opt, subopt, &str) == -ENOMEM) {
>>> + fprintf(stderr, "Out of memory!");
>>
>> Seems like using strerror() would be better than a hand-rolled, un-
>> translatable string?
>
> Every day there is something new. :-)
Yeah, sorry. But in general, strings need to be translatable; (that was
pointed out before) and strerror() would do that for your for free.
>>
>>> + return NULL;
>>> + }
>>
>> Again, I don't see that any subsequent patches ever call get_conf_raw();
>> is there any reason to even have this wrapper now?
>
> Luis had a pretty strong opinion about having them there when he will
> need them in his own patches later on and I saw no reason why not to
> add them right now when the functions are created. After all, they
> will be useful later on also for me, when I want to limit the amount
> of asserts and be more return-oriented. It's just not in this
> patchset.
Hm, ok. Let me reread that, thread - I'm just looking at this patchset
as sent.
In general, I'm not clear on what your "_safe" and "_unsafe" variants
are about but maybe it was discussed in the prior thread I skipped.
Thanks,
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
