Re: [PATCH 01/14] Extend index to save more flags

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

 



On 9/21/08, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > +
>  > +#define CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS (0)
>  > +
>  > +/*
>  > + * Safeguard to avoid saving wrong flags:
>  > + *  - CE_EXTENDED2 won't get saved until its semantic is known
>  > + *  - Bits in 0x0000FFFF have been saved in ce_flags already
>  > + *  - Bits in 0x003F0000 are currently in-memory flags
>  > + */
>  > +#if CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS & 0x80CFFFFF
>  > +#error "CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS out of range"
>  > +#endif
>
>
> I don't quite understand the above fragment (especially with the fact
>  that CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS is defined as (0))...

Because this patch does not introduce any new on-disk flag yet so
CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS remains 0. In the next patch, CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS will
be updated to have CE_NO_CHECKOUT.
-- 
Duy
--
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]

  Powered by Linux