On (13/02/14 10:55), Michal Židek wrote:
> On 01/17/2014 04:30 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (13/01/14 10:39), Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>> On 01/13/2014 09:54 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>> On (13/01/14 09:07), Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>>>> On 01/13/2014 05:49 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>> ehlo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Function ini_config_serialize was declared in the header file
ini_configobj.h,
>>>>>> but this header file was not included in implementation module
ini_serialize.c
>>>>> This is fine though I do not see a big reason to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Functions print_config_parsing_errors, print_file_parsing_errors
were declared
>>>>>> in the header file ini_config.h, but this header file was not
included
>>>>>> in implementation module ini_print.c
>>>>> ini_config.h is the old interface
>>>>> ini_configobj.h is the new interface
>>>> Yes,
>>>> but problem is that implementations of functions from old interface are
in the
>>>> same module (ini_print.c) like implementations of functions from old
interface.
>>>> If you do not like including both header files in one module, we should
file a
>>>> ticket to split file ini_print.c. It is internal change and I hope easy
task.
>>>>
>>>> But without this patch there will be some warnings:
>>>> CC ini_print.lo
>>>> ini/ini_print.c:327:6: warning: no previous prototype for
'print_file_parsing_errors' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>>>> void print_file_parsing_errors(FILE *file,
>>>> ^
>>>> ini/ini_print.c:405:6: warning: no previous prototype for
'print_config_parsing_errors' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>>>> void print_config_parsing_errors(FILE *file,
>>>> ^
>>>
>>> I took a look at these two functions. They are not used in the new
>>> interface.
>>> I suggest we just explicitly add declarations for these two functions to
>>> the top of ini_print.c instead of including the header file.
>> Done
>>
>>> Splitting the module is a more labor intensive change. I would rather
>>> wait some time and just remove the old interface.
>>> Then split would not be needed.
>>>
>>>>> These headers should not be included into one module.
>>>>> They are mutually exclusive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Functions should probably be included into ini_configobj.h but I
have
>>>>> not included them because they are already declared in the old
interface.
>>>>> So may be we should move them from old to new rather than declare
them
>>>>> twice?
>>>>>
>>
>> New file is attached.
>>
>> LS
>>
>
> The patch itself is OK. Just a (very) small nitpick. Could you change
> the second part of patch description so that it is clear that you
> just added the declarations (from the description it looks like you
> wanted to include the header). I do not think anyone will actually
> read it and yes, it is obvious from the patch what you did, but if
> you fix this it will make me happy :)
>
Previously, I included two header files, but there was an objection
@see
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2014-January/018015.html
Yes, I read the thread and I am fine with the current patch. It is
just that the current patch description looks to be a little misleading
to me.
I can include this change into another patchset if you want.