Jay Gagnon wrote:
Dan Smith wrote:
> Also, since this is a library function and it could potentially be
> used in other places down the road, I think it would be better to make
> it return both sides of the id, as parse_fq_devid() does now. Yes, it
> will require the caller to free() another string, but I think its
> better that way.
>
>
>
>
Seems like with another 10 minutes ore so you could make it so that
passing a NULL pointer in for either side of the id would just mean that
part gets ignored, so you only get the side you are actually interested
in. It wouldn't force callers to break from convention but would allow
for things to be a touch cleaner in the calling function.
Both seem like good ideas. I'll see if I can write up something reasonable.
--
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
karupert(a)us.ibm.com