[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874jly959g.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 13:33:50 +0200
From: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
To: Gioele Barabucci <gioele@...rio.it>
CC: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Stephen
Hemminger" <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [iproute2 04/22] tc/tc_util: Read class names from provided
path, /etc/, /usr
Gioele Barabucci <gioele@...rio.it> writes:
> On 20/07/23 12:10, Petr Machata wrote:
>>> diff --git a/tc/tc_util.c b/tc/tc_util.c
>>> index ed9efa70..e6235291 100644
>>> --- a/tc/tc_util.c
>>> +++ b/tc/tc_util.c
>>> @@ -28,7 +28,8 @@
>>> static struct db_names *cls_names;
>>> -#define NAMES_DB "/etc/iproute2/tc_cls"
>>> +#define NAMES_DB_USR "/usr/lib/iproute2/tc_cls"
>>> +#define NAMES_DB_ETC "/etc/iproute2/tc_cls"
>> Is there a reason that these don't use CONF_USR_DIR and CONF_ETC_DIR?
>> I thought maybe the caller uses those and this is just a hardcoded
>> fallback, but that's not the case.
>
> Thanks for the review Petr.
>
> The reason why I did not use CONF_USR_DIR in these patches is because I wanted to minimize the
> number and amount of changes. But I asked myself the same question when I first looked at this and
> other similar occurrences.
>
> Let me know if I should update the patches to use CONF_{USR,ETC}_DIR.
The change would make sense to me, it looks like rest of the code tends
to use those defines. But it should probably be sent separately, yeah.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists