Re: [PATCH 04/18] Offer a function to demote fsck errors to warnings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> For example, try to spot the error here:
>
> 	...
> 	F(ALMOST_HAPPY, INFO) \
> 	F(CANNOT_RECOVER, ERROR) \
> 	F(COFFEE_IS_EMPTY, WARN) \
> 	F(JUST_BEING_CHATTY, INFO) \
> 	F(LIFE_IS_GOOD, INFO) \
> 	F(MISSING_SOMETHING_VITAL, FATAL_ERROR) \
> 	F(NEED_TO_SLEEP, WARN) \
> 	F(SOMETHING_WENT_WRONG, ERROR) \
> 	...

But that is not what is being suggested at all.  I already said that
FIRST_SOMETHING is fine as a measure to initialize, didn't I?

I am only saying that if you have a place to store customized level,
you should initialize that part with default levels and always look
it up from that place at runtime.  It is perfectly fine for the
initialization step to take advantage of the ordering and
FIRST_SOMETHING constants.

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]