Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In general, I'm all for moving CIFS out of the business of implementing > ASN.1 like this. This last bit of this patch was a bit confusing though. > It left me wondering where the actual definitions of these OIDs go. > > It looks though like you're using a script to scrape the comments out > of the above enum to generate C files. That is correct. See the comment preceding enum OID. I should add something to Documentation/ about this too. > That would certainly work, but it seems like a fragile solution. Minor > whitespace munging (like an extra newline in there) could throw off the > parsing... Extra whitespace and extra newlines shouldn't hurt, unless you mean splitting a comment over multiple lines. I could generate the enum too, though it's easy enough for anyone to check that the OID they've just added is present in the table. Actually, it can be made a lot more robust by assuming that every line with "OID_" in it is an OID declaration, and everyone of those lines that doesn't match the expected pattern gets an error. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
