On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:47:00PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
> This causes more problems than it solves. In the latest edition:
Yes, I agree. You're right that exceptions suck.
> Simply treat "none" like any other source when passed in.
Yes,
> We still keep conventions to allow NULL as a valid source and
> replace it with "none".
but I don't agree with this idea. The old code converted "none" to
NULL, you want to convert NULL to "none". I think both is wrong.
It would be better to keep the difference between "none" and NULL.
The NULL means that the source is not set, "none" means that the source
is unnecessary. As you said 'treat "none" like any other source'.
> @@ -341,11 +337,9 @@ int mnt_fs_set_source(struct libmnt_fs *fs, const char *source)
>
> if (!fs)
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (source) {
> - p = strdup(source);
> - if (!p)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - }
> + p = strdup(source ? source : "none");
> + if (!p)
> + return -ENOMEM;
IMHO better is:
if (source) {
p = strdup(source);
if (!p)
return -ENOMEM;
}
Dave, we have some regression test for libmount, try
$ make -C libmount/src tests
# cd tests
# ./run.sh libmount
# ./run.sh mount
maybe we need more tests for the "none" stuff.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
