Re: [RFC PATCH 03/28] cli: lil: Replace strclone with strdup

[Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>]

On 7/2/21 4:36 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 01/07/2021 08.15, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> Apparently strdup is not portable, so LIL used its own. Use strdup.
> 
> You could reduce the churn by just making strclone "#define strclone(x)
> strdup(x)", but I suppose you end up modifying the upstream code so much
> that there's not really anything gained by that.
> 
> But that begs the question: What is the long-term plan for this? While
> it does seem to be an improvement compared to hush, will we ever be able
> to incorporate fixes&features from upstream, or will this code end up in
> the same situation as hush?

Well, since Hush was never updated, I don't believe LIL will be either.
I think reducing the amount of ifdefs makes the code substantially
easier to maintain. My intention is to just use LIL as a starting point
which can be modified as needed to better suit U-Boot.

The other half of this is that LIL is not particularly actively
developed. I believe the author sees his work as essentially
feature-complete, so I expect no major features which we might like to
backport.

> 
> Have you been in contact with upstream about this project? Perhaps some
> of the things you do could go upstream - e.g. the conversion from an
> array of wrongly-typed callbacks to an "ops" struct seems to be an
> obvious improvement [lil_callback would have to be kept, and changed to
> use a switch() statement to update the right slot, but we wouldn't have
> to care because ld will remove it anyway if we don't add any users of it].

I have not. I'm not sure what changes I've made are compatible with the
vision he has for LIL. He's CC'd on this series, so perhaps he can
comment.

--Sean