On Sun, 25.05.14 12:39, Przemek Rudy (pru...@o2.pl) wrote: > -Set *manager_get_units_requiring_mounts_for(Manager *m, const char *path) { > +Set *manager_get_units_need_mounts_for(Manager *m, const char *path, > bool strong) {
Please don't invent new bools halfway. Please always use the same logic here to discern the two kinds, i.e. the dep type enum. > * them. It's a hashmap with a path string as key and a Set as > - * value where Unit objects are contained. */ > - Hashmap *units_requiring_mounts_for; > + * value where Unit objects are contained. > + * [0] - map of required (strong) paths > + * [1] - map of wanted (weak) paths */ > + Hashmap *units_need_mounts_for[2]; Please use two normal variables for this. Two isn't that many that you'd need to defer to an array for this. Also, an array where we use arbitrary numeric indexes for reference two different concepts is not OK. If we do this, then we must have an enum to reference this. Also, introducing a new numbering scheme, where we already have the dep type as enum... Generally, I still don't really feel that the usecase for this is strong enough. Can you make a strong concise case why we want this? I am not totally opposed, but I want to know why I merge this... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel