Re: [PATCH 09/11] read-cache: require flags for `write_locked_index()`

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

 



On 2 October 2017 at 05:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> ... Instead, require that one of the
>> flags is set. Adjust documentation and the assert we already have for
>> checking that we don't have too many flags. Add a macro `HAS_SINGLE_BIT`
>> (inspired by `HAS_MULTI_BITS`) to simplify this check and similar checks
>> in the future.
>
> I do not have a strong opinion against this approach, but if
> something can take only one of two values, wouldn't it make more
> sense to express it as a single boolean, I wonder.  Then there is no
> need to invent a cute HAS_SINGLE_BIT() macro, either.
>
> "commit and leave it open" cannot be expressed with such a scheme,
> but with the HAS_SINGLE_BIT() scheme it can't anyway, so...

I did briefly consider renaming `flags` to `commit` and re-#defining the
two flags to 0 and 1 (or even updating all the callers to use literal
zeros and ones). It felt a bit awkward to downgrade `flags` to a bool
-- normally we'd to the reverse change. But maybe I shouldn't have
rejected that so easily. If we have a feeling we won't need other flags
(or the "don't even close the file") any time soon, maybe it'd be good
to tighten things up a bit. Thanks for looking at these.




[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]

  Powered by Linux