On Sun, 30.11.14 16:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote:
> ---
> I think this would be useful. Comments?
Wouldn't that better be encoded in the "ltype" parameter, rather than
the data parameter?
Generally like the idea, but "abesence reason" sounds a bit doggerel?
DISABLED_BUILD_TIME
DISABLED_EXPERIMENTAL
Or so?
> const char *rvalue,
> void *data,
> void *userdata) {
> + AbsenceReason reason = PTR_TO_INT(userdata);
> +
> + switch(reason) {
> + case ABSENCE_REASON_CONFIG:
> + log_syntax(unit, LOG_DEBUG, filename, line, EINVAL,
> + "Support for option %s= has been disabled at
> compile time and it is ignored", lvalue);
> + break;
> + case ABSENCE_REASON_EXPERIMENTAL:
> + log_syntax(unit, LOG_INFO, filename, line, EINVAL,
> + "Support for option %s= has not yet been enabled
> and it is ignored", lvalue);
> + break;
> + };
>
> - log_syntax(unit, LOG_DEBUG, filename, line, EINVAL,
> - "Support for option %s= has been disabled at compile time
> and is ignored",
> - lvalue);
> return 0;
> }
> #endif
Mabye use a string array here, indexed by the ltype?
static const msgs[_DISABLE_MAX] = {
[DISABLED_BUILD_TIME] = "...",
[DISABLED_EXPERIMENTAL] = "...",
};
assert_se(ltype < _DISABLED_MAX];
.... msgs[ltype] ...
You get the idea...
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
