Hi Reinette, On 5/5/23 16:24, Reinette Chatre wrote: > 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. ok. > >> 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>) > > sure. Will address this next revision. Thanks Babu
