[Fwd: Re: [PATCH] s3: Fix max indentation and max column]

[Christof Schmitt]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:11:23PM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:04:54PM +0100, Swen Schillig wrote:
> > Jeremy, you're a bad man :-)
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 09:16 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 15:22 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > Well what you're doing here is also reformatting the original
> > > code (which curently matches my preferred pattern). So IMHO when
> > > removing a layer of indentation you can keep the existing formatting
> > > of the parameter list without violating the Samba coding rules.
> > > 
> > > Plus right now you have a NAK with the patten change, but
> > > only a *potential* NAK without the pattern change.
> > > 
> > > So the way forward is to re-submit this without the pattern
> > > change and I'll +1 and ask for a second Team member +1. If
> > > we get another NAK due to the patten change then we'll cross
> > > that bridge when we come to it.
> > > 
> > > In the meantime I'll work on getting README.Coding changed
> > > so the "correct" way of parameter passing is preferred :-).
> > > 
> > ...here we go...complying to new coding rules :-)
> > 
> > Cheers Swen
> 
> LGTM. Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
> 
> Can I get a second Team reviewer ?
> 
> Jeremy.
> 
> > From 4e884e5a19779aacf77d6ffd3c971474eb356472 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Swen Schillig <swen at vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:55:23 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] s3: Fix max indentation and max column
> > 
> > Minor cleanup reducing the max indentation level and max column length.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Swen Schillig <swen at vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  source3/smbd/dir.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/source3/smbd/dir.c b/source3/smbd/dir.c
> > index 6621b4ee387..a4045918cc3 100644
> > --- a/source3/smbd/dir.c
> > +++ b/source3/smbd/dir.c
> > @@ -159,29 +159,34 @@ static struct dptr_struct *dptr_get(struct smbd_server_connection *sconn,
> >  				    int key, bool forclose)
> >  {
> >  	struct dptr_struct *dptr;
> > +	const int dirhandles_open = sconn->searches.dirhandles_open;
> >  
> > -	for(dptr = sconn->searches.dirptrs; dptr; dptr = dptr->next) {
> > -		if(dptr->dnum == key) {
> > -			if (!forclose && !dptr->dir_hnd) {
> > -				if (sconn->searches.dirhandles_open >= MAX_OPEN_DIRECTORIES)
> > -					dptr_idleoldest(sconn);
> > -				DEBUG(4,("dptr_get: Reopening dptr key %d\n",key));
> > -
> > -				if (!(dptr->dir_hnd = OpenDir(NULL,
> > -							dptr->conn,
> > -							dptr->smb_dname,
> > -							dptr->wcard,
> > -							dptr->attr))) {
> > -					DEBUG(4,("dptr_get: Failed to "
> > -						"open %s (%s)\n",
> > -						dptr->smb_dname->base_name,
> > -						strerror(errno)));
> > -					return NULL;
> > -				}
> > +	for (dptr = sconn->searches.dirptrs; dptr; dptr = dptr->next) {
> > +		if(dptr->dnum != key) {
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (!forclose && !dptr->dir_hnd) {
> > +			if (dirhandles_open >= MAX_OPEN_DIRECTORIES) {
> > +				dptr_idleoldest(sconn);
> > +			}
> > +			DEBUG(4,("dptr_get: Reopening dptr key %d\n",key));

Should we update the debug statements while touching the code?
That could become:
DBG_INFO("Reopening dptr key %d\n", key);

> > +
> > +			dptr->dir_hnd = OpenDir(NULL,
> > +						dptr->conn,
> > +						dptr->smb_dname,
> > +						dptr->wcard,
> > +						dptr->attr);
> > +
> > +			if (dptr->dir_hnd == NULL) {
> > +				DEBUG(4,("dptr_get: Failed to open %s (%s)\n",
> > +				      dptr->smb_dname->base_name,
> > +				      strerror(errno)));

DBG_NOTICE("Failed to open ...

> > +				return NULL;
> >  			}
> > -			DLIST_PROMOTE(sconn->searches.dirptrs,dptr);
> > -			return dptr;
> >  		}
> > +		DLIST_PROMOTE(sconn->searches.dirptrs, dptr);
> > +		return dptr;
> >  	}
> >  	return(NULL);
> >  }
> > -- 
> > 2.14.3
> > 
> 
> 

Christof