On 08/16/2012 04:02 PM, Steve Beattie wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:50:27AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> parser/Makefile | 7 +- >> parser/lib.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib.c needs a copyright header. It can also probably merged with doh right > parser_misc.c as they're kind of intended to serve the same purpose; > helper functions that don't fit in a specific location, but that's not > a blocker for this patch. > actually my plan was to move things the other way as they got cleaned up. >> parser/lib.h | 7 ++ >> parser/parser_lex.l | 111 +++++++++++++++------------- >> parser/parser_main.c | 197 >> ++++++++++++++----------------------------------- >> parser/tst/caching.sh | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 193 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 parser/lib.c >> create mode 100644 parser/lib.h >> >> diff --git a/parser/Makefile b/parser/Makefile >> index 0a31226..1d3dc6a 100644 >> diff --git a/parser/lib.c b/parser/lib.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..7c69c68 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/parser/lib.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ >> +#include <dirent.h> >> +#include <errno.h> >> +#include <fcntl.h> >> +#include <stdio.h> >> +#include <string.h> >> +#include <stddef.h> >> +#include <stdlib.h> >> +#include <unistd.h> >> +#define _(s) gettext(s) >> + >> +#include <sys/stat.h> >> +#include <sys/types.h> >> + >> +#include "parser.h" >> + >> +/** >> + * dirat_for_each: iterate over a directory calling cb for each entry >> + * @dir: already opened directory (MAYBE NULL) >> + * @name: name of the directory (MAYBE NULL) > > grammar nit "MAY BE NULL" > heh, yeah > I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to have three versions of this > function, one as-is requiring @dir and @name to be non-NULL, and the > other two for the single argument version of the functions (I suspect > the one with @dir only would be called by the other two, but I haven't > thought very hard about it). This would potentially be a little more > defensive programming as a caller that meant to pass a non-NULL as one > of the arguments but messed up for some reason would generate an error, > and not be accepted with unexpected behavior. > Hrmmm I'll tinker with it, I am thinking that the others would basically be wrapper fns. > Otherwise, code looks fine, and none of my objections except the > copyright bit should prevent it from going in as-is. > > Thanks! > > Okay I'll count that as an acked-by: and send out the tinkering patch on top of this. -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
