On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> +# Define USE_ST_TIMESPEC=YesPlease when stat.st_mtimespec.tv_nsec exist >> >> It would be slightly more accurate to drop the ".tv_nsec" bit from this comment. > > The AC_CHECK_MEMBER is checking for st_mtimespec.tv_nsec. If I drop > tv_nsec from the comment should I also drop it in the check? No. My observation was just about the comment. > I thought it was better to be very explicit because the code using the > check is using that .tv_nsec field...I figured the check may as well > do exactly what the code is doing... Indeed, the check and code should agree. However, from the perspective of the person reading comment, the ".tv_nsec" is just an implementation detail of the check itself. The final outcome (the setting of USE_ST_TIMESPEC) is independent of how that check was made: it matters only that 'stat.st_mtimespec' was detected _somehow_. Anyhow, it's just a minor observation, hence my qualification of it as "_slightly_ more accurate". If you feel strongly that it should remain as is, then that's fine. -- 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