On 11/17/2015 11:34 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:31:32AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 02:28 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think one of the prime reasons for #2861 was copy-pasting code. The
>> two attached patches reduce the code duplication and hopefully will make
>> future additions to Data Provider safer.
>>
>> Ideas on different solutions are welcome!
>
>> +static errno_t be_sbus_req_reply(struct sbus_request *sbus_req,
>> + const char *req_name,
>> + int dp_err_type,
>> + int errnum,
>> + const char *errstr)
>> +{
>> + const char *req_msg;
>> + dbus_uint16_t err_maj;
>> + dbus_uint32_t err_min;
>> +
>> + err_maj = dp_err_type;
>> + err_min = errnum;
>> +
>> + req_msg = req_name ? req_name : "sbus";
>
> ^^ unused, along with req_name
Oops, now it is (I couldn't make my mind on how to report the caller,
feel free to suggest a better one)
>
>> + return be_sbus_reply(sbus_req, err_maj, err_min, errstr);
>> +}
>
>> +static inline void be_sbus_reply_data_set(struct be_sbus_reply_data *rdata,
>> + dbus_uint16_t err_maj,
>> + dbus_uint32_t err_min,
>> + const char *err_msg)
>> +{
>
> if (rdata == NULL) {
> DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Bug: ...\n");
Done.
> }
>
>> + if (rdata) {
>> + rdata->err_maj = err_maj;
>> + rdata->err_min = err_min;
>> + rdata->err_msg = err_msg;
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I like it!
Thanks, new patches are attached.
I had a phone call with Jakub and we decided that it will be better to
use be_req directly instead of lower level sbus_req. This will allow us
to simplify it more.