| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
This should be handled fine now by .dir-locals.el, so need to carry that
stuff in every file.
|
|
GLIB has recently started to officially support the gcc cleanup
attribute in its public API, hence let's do the same for our APIs.
With this patch we'll define an xyz_unrefp() call for each public
xyz_unref() call, to make it easy to use inside a
__attribute__((cleanup())) expression. Then, all code is ported over to
make use of this.
The new calls are also documented in the man pages, with examples how to
use them (well, I only added docs where the _unref() call itself already
had docs, and the examples, only cover sd_bus_unrefp() and
sd_event_unrefp()).
This also renames sd_lldp_free() to sd_lldp_unref(), since that's how we
tend to call our destructors these days.
Note that this defines no public macro that wraps gcc's attribute and
makes it easier to use. While I think it's our duty in the library to
make our stuff easy to use, I figure it's not our duty to make gcc's own
features easy to use on its own. Most likely, client code which wants to
make use of this should define its own:
#define _cleanup_(function) __attribute__((cleanup(function)))
Or similar, to make the gcc feature easier to use.
Making this logic public has the benefit that we can remove three header
files whose only purpose was to define these functions internally.
See #2008.
|
|
|
|
string-util.[ch]
There are more than enough calls doing string manipulations to deserve
its own files, hence do something about it.
This patch also sorts the #include blocks of all files that needed to be
updated, according to the sorting suggestions from CODING_STYLE. Since
pretty much every file needs our string manipulation functions this
effectively means that most files have sorted #include blocks now.
Also touches a few unrelated include files.
|
|
In practice this shouldn't make much difference, but
sometimes our headers might be newer, and we want to
test them.
|
|
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-April/010510.html
|
|
When using "-p" and "-b" in combination with "-u", the output is not
what you would expect. The reason is the sd_journal_add_disjunction()
call in add_matches_for_unit() and add_matches_for_user_unit(), which
adds two ORs without taking the other conditions to every OR.
Adding another level on top with AND and sd_journal_add_conjunction()
solves the problem.
Output before:
$ journalctl -o short-monotonic -ab -p 0 -u sshd.service
-- Reboot --
[ 3.216305] lenovo systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon...
-- Reboot --
[ 3.168666] lenovo systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon...
[ 3.169639] lenovo systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon.
[36285.635389] lenovo systemd[1]: Stopped OpenSSH server daemon.
-- Reboot --
[ 10.838657] lenovo systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon...
[ 10.913698] lenovo systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon.
[ 6881.035183] lenovo systemd[1]: Stopped OpenSSH server daemon.
-- Reboot --
[ 6.636228] lenovo systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon...
[ 6.662573] lenovo systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon.
[ 6.681148] lenovo sshd[397]: Server listening on 0.0.0.0 port 22.
[ 6.681379] lenovo sshd[397]: Server listening on :: port 22.
As we see, the output is from _every_ boot and priority 0 is not taken
into account.
Output after patch:
$ journalctl -o short-monotonic -ab -p 0 -u sshd.service
-- Logs begin at Sun 2013-02-24 20:54:44 CET, end at Tue 2013-03-19 14:58:21 CET. --
Increasing the priority:
$ journalctl -o short-monotonic -ab -p 6 -u sshd.service
-- Logs begin at Sun 2013-02-24 20:54:44 CET, end at Tue 2013-03-19 14:59:12 CET. --
[ 6.636228] lenovo systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon...
[ 6.662573] lenovo systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon.
[ 6.681148] lenovo sshd[397]: Server listening on 0.0.0.0 port 22.
[ 6.681379] lenovo sshd[397]: Server listening on :: port 22.
|
|
|
|
we now can take multiple matches, and they will apply as AND if they
apply to different fields and OR if they apply to the same fields. Also,
terms of this kind can be combined with an overreaching OR.
|
