From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Sutter Subject: Re: [nft PATCH 6/7] libnftables: Provide an API for include path handling Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:16:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20171020171620.GI32305@orbyte.nwl.cc> References: <20171019081847.16171-1-phil@nwl.cc> <20171019081847.16171-7-phil@nwl.cc> <20171020121700.GE4068@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Leblond , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Westphal To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc ([151.80.46.58]:53348 "EHLO orbyte.nwl.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751698AbdJTRQV (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:16:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171020121700.GE4068@salvia> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:18:46AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: [...] > > +int nft_ctx_add_include_path(struct nft_ctx *ctx, const char *path) > > Do we want to accept runtime addition/removal of include paths? Not necessarily, but src/main.c does just that: It calls nft_ctx_new() first, then adds include paths as it parses them from command line. > I mean, I would just make it nft_ctx_set_include_path(), then add an > unsetter, so we simplify this. The counterpart to nft_ctx_add_include_path() is nft_ctx_clear_include_paths(), which just drops all the previously set ones. Does that meet your understanding of an unsetter, or am I missing something? The reason why this patch is a bit more complicated is because I wanted to get rid of the hard upper limit of include paths to avoid introducing a getter for number of set include paths or to make it necessary for applications (read: src/main.c) to check what return code nft_ctx_add_include_path() returned to print a reasonable error message. Cheers, Phil