From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 29 19:16:06 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A2A2BFB1F for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C7XQ5pcMz3CLv for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C55942BFB1E; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C517E2BFB1D for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C7XQ4wdVz3CLs for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0279A67B for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03TJG6G4070548 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 03TJG6XI070547 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 244640] [Patch][Lua loader] Implement missing "read-conf" 4th command Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: loader, patch-ready X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: olivier.freebsd@free.fr X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kevans@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable12? mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:07 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244640 --- Comment #8 from Olivier Certner --- (In reply to Kyle Evans from comment #7) Yes, I overlooked 360423, thinking it was wrong (but only the added comment= is ;-)). So you're right, the original problem is fixed. Still, the proposed patch applies POLA for "loader_conf_files", which is a priori a variable like the others, in addition to its special meaning when loading, by keeping the latest value it was set at in between loads and at = the end. I have no use for this myself, and a priori cannot think of useful consequences of that. But still, I think that if "loader_conf_files" can be clobbered by the loading process (the current state), this should be mentio= ned in the documentation for this variable ("loader_conf_files"). Also, I feel that readConf is a more to the point interface for the existing code, but it may be a matter of taste, and you might have other usage plans that contradict this. Anyway, it's up to you since you maintain this code. Thanks. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=