Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] Introduce fsck options
>
> please make it easier to cluster and spot the series in the eventual
> shortlog by giving a common prefix to the patches, e.g.
>
> fsck: introduce fsck_options struct
I use the fsck: prefix consistently now.
> > +static struct fsck_options fsck_walk_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
> > +static struct fsck_options fsck_obj_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
>
> Is it a good idea to allow walker to be strict but obj verifier to
> be not (or vice versa)? I am wondering why this is not a single
> struct with two callback function pointers.
Unfortunately not. There are two different walkers used, and in fact,
fsck_walk_options() is only used to walk the objects, not to fsck them.
Now, I could use only one struct and set the walker, but that is not
thread-safe, and while code is not threaded yet AFAICT, it might be in the
future. That is why I decided to be rather safe than sorry. If you want it
differently, please just say the word, I will make it so.
> > +struct fsck_options {
> > + fsck_walk_func walk;
> > + fsck_error error_func;
> > + int strict:1;
>
> A signed 1-bit-wide bitfield can hold its sign-bit and nothing else,
> no?
>
> unsigned strict:1;
Oops. Right. For some reason, it worked here, though... Fixed!
Ciao,
Dscho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html