On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 22.03.15 13:36, Michael Olbrich (m.olbr...@pengutronix.de) wrote: > > Love this work! > > > init_autofs_dev_ioctl(¶m); > > param.ioctlfd = ioctl_fd; > > - param.timeout.timeout = sec; > > + > > + /* Convert to seconds, rounding up. */ > > + param.timeout.timeout = usec / USEC_PER_SEC + (usec % > USEC_PER_SEC > 0); > > Please use "(usec + USEC_PER_SEC - 1) / USEC_PER_SEC". > > > > > +int automount_update_mount(Automount *a, MountState old_state, > MountState state) > > +{ > > Please add opening bracket to the function declaration line before, like > for all other > constructs. We differ from kernel coding style in this regard. > > > @@ -535,6 +585,100 @@ fail: > > automount_enter_dead(a, AUTOMOUNT_FAILURE_RESOURCES); > > } > > > > +static int automount_start_expire(Automount *a); > > + > > +struct expire_data { > > + int dev_autofs_fd; > > + int ioctl_fd; > > +}; > > + > > +static inline void cleanup_expire(void *p) { > > + struct expire_data *data = *(struct expire_data**)p; > > + > > + if (!data) > > + return; > > + > > + safe_close(data->dev_autofs_fd); > > + safe_close(data->ioctl_fd); > > + free(data); > > +} > > +#define _cleanup_expire_ _cleanup_(cleanup_expire) > > No need to define this. We only define this for commonly used > structs. Simply use _cleanup_() directly... > > > + > > +static void *expire_thread(void *p) { > > + struct autofs_dev_ioctl param; > > + _cleanup_expire_ struct expire_data *data = (struct > expire_data*)p; > > + int r; > > + > > + assert(data->dev_autofs_fd >= 0); > > + assert(data->ioctl_fd >= 0); > > + > > + init_autofs_dev_ioctl(¶m); > > + param.ioctlfd = data->ioctl_fd; > > + > > + do { > > + r = ioctl(data->dev_autofs_fd, AUTOFS_DEV_IOCTL_EXPIRE, > ¶m); > > + } while (r == 0); > > + > > + if (errno != EAGAIN) > > + log_error_errno(errno, "failed to expire automount: > > %m"); > > Please uppercase the first word of the message. > > Also, given that we don't actually do anything about the failure, i > think we should downgrade this to a warning, and clarify that we > ignore this, by suffixing the message with ", ignoring" or so... Like so: > > log_warning_errno(errno, "Failed to expire automount, ignoring: > %m"); > > Isn't log_warning_errno(errno, "%m") identical to just log_warning("%m")? -- Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel