Hi, On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 12:32 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:43:09PM +0200, Eric Leblond wrote: > [...] > > diff --git a/src/libnftables.c b/src/libnftables.c > > index c50c068..a42e8f1 100644 > > --- a/src/libnftables.c > > +++ b/src/libnftables.c > > @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ struct nft_ctx *nft_context_new(void) > > ctx->nf_sock = netlink_open_sock(); > > > > init_list_head(&ctx->cache.list); > > + init_list_head(&ctx->output.msgs); > > > > ctx->output.ctx = ctx; > > ctx->output.print = nft_print; > > @@ -108,6 +109,7 @@ void nft_context_free(struct nft_ctx *nft) .. > > struct parser_state state; > > - LIST_HEAD(msgs); > > void *scanner; > > > > - parser_init(nft->nf_sock, &nft->cache, &state, &msgs); > > + parser_init(nft->nf_sock, &nft->cache, &state, &nft- > > >output.msgs); > > Change signature to take struct nft_ctx as first parameter and get > rid > of everything but struct parser_state?
Fully agree with proposal. > > > scanner = scanner_init(&state); > > scanner_push_buffer(scanner, &indesc_cmdline, buf); > > > > - if (nft_run(nft, nft->nf_sock, &nft->cache, scanner, > > &state, &msgs) != 0) > > + if (nft_run(nft, nft->nf_sock, &nft->cache, scanner, > > + &state, &nft->output.msgs) != 0) > > Just use nft->output.msg directly in nft_run() and drop the > parameter? Yes, I think we can go and simplify a few functions prototype. I did not do it cause of lack of time but also because I wanted to have everybody agree on the data model before doing this changes. ++ -- Eric Leblond <e...@regit.org> Blog: https://home.regit.org/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
