Hi Babu, On 5/5/2023 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote: > Hi Reinette, > > On 5/4/2023 2:00 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> Hi Babu, >> >> On 4/17/2023 4:34 PM, Babu Moger wrote: >>> Remove gaps in bit definitions of RFTYPE flags and add more comments >> Why is it necessary to remove gaps in the bit definitions? > > Removing the gaps is not necessary definitely. I thought adding > comments will help adding new flags in the future. > I agree that removing the gaps are not necessary. > If you want me to drop this whole patch, I am fine with it.> The comments may be useful. If you decide to keep it please review it for consistency. The comments should not increase confusion. For example, * in one instance you refer to "info" and "base" as components, in another you refer to them as directories, which is confusing since there is a "info" directory but no "base" directory. * related to previous item, the comments start by referring to the "info" and "base" components but then the comments switch to describing a "info directory structure and "group structure" * the separator (---) is used above a header in one instance and below a header in another * in some places you use the syntax: --> <flag name> (<dir name>, <dir name>) in other places you use: --> <flag name> --> (<dir name>) --> (<dir name>) Reinette
