On 3/17/2021 9:47 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> On 3/16/2021 12:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> I expect that there won't be many of these fsck utility functions in >>> the future, so just having a single fsck-cb.c makes sense. >> >> I'm not convinced that having a single cb function merits its >> own file. But, if you expect this pattern to be expanded a >> couple more times, then I would say it is worth it. Do you have >> such plans? > > Not really, well. Vague ones, but nothing I have even local patches for. > > It just seemed odd to stick random callback functions shared by related > programs into fsck.h's interface, but I guess with > FSCK_OPTIONS_MISSING_GITMODULES I already did that. > > Do you suggest just putting it into fsck.c? Yeah, if it is frequently paired with fsck operations, I think it makes the most sense there. And looking at it again, I'm not sure parse-options-cb.c has a good excuse for being separate from parse-options.c, but that's the current state so I wouldn't change it now. Thanks, -Stolee
