On 06/24/2015 01:38 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
Hello Michal, I have just a few nitpicks/comment to your patch.
On 06/23/2015 08:08 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
> +#define MISSING_RESOLV_CONF_POLL_TIME 10
> +
> +static void missing_resolv_conf(struct tevent_context *ev,
> + struct tevent_timer *te,
> + struct timeval tv, void *data)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct mt_ctx *ctx = talloc_get_type(data, struct mt_ctx);
> +
> + ret = monitor_config_file(ctx, ctx, RESOLV_CONF_PATH,
> + monitor_update_resolv, false);
> + if (ret == EOK) {
> + signal_res_init(ctx);
> + } if (ret == ENOENT) {
Did you want to write 'else if' ? (If 'if' is used on purpose then
please add new line.)
It should have been 'else if'.
> + tv =
> tevent_timeval_current_ofs(MISSING_RESOLV_CONF_POLL_TIME, 0);
> + te = tevent_add_timer(ctx->ev, ctx, tv, missing_resolv_conf,
> ctx);
> + if (te == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
> + "tevent_add_timer failed. resolv.conf will be
> ignored.\n");
> + }
> + } else if (ret != EOK) {
If my prev. comment is valid you should use else here, right?
Yes.
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
> + "Monitor_config_file failed. resolv.conf will be
> ignored.\n");
> + }
> +
> + return;
Explicit return is in my opinion needless.
Ok.
> +}
> +
Thanks!
New patches attached.
Michal