[SSSD] [PATCH][ding_libs] INI: Include missing header files

Michal Židek mzidek at redhat.com
Thu Feb 13 14:23:16 UTC 2014


On 02/13/2014 01:40 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> 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.

Yes, please.

Michal

>
> LS




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list