On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:55:23AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 04/13/2018 10:35 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Consistenly use << to define ST_* constants. This also aligns them with > >> their MS_* counterparts in fs.h > > > > IMHO, using (1 << 10) makes the code harder to debug. If you see a field > > in a structure like 0x8354, it is non-trivial to map this to the ST_* > > flags if they are declared in the form (1 << 10) or BIT(10). If they are > > declared in the form 0x100 (as they are now) then it is trivial that the > > ST_APPEND flag is set in 0x8354, and easy to understand the other flags. > > > > So, my preference would be to NOT land this or the previous patch. All higher values are already initialized with bit-shifts for MS_* constants starting with (1<<16) as you can see from the patch and in fs.h: > +#define MS_VERBOSE (1<<15) /* War is peace. Verbosity is silence. > + * MS_VERBOSE is deprecated. > + */ > +#define MS_SILENT (1<<15) > #define MS_POSIXACL (1<<16) /* VFS does not apply the umask */ > #define MS_UNBINDABLE (1<<17) /* change to unbindable */ > #define MS_PRIVATE (1<<18) /* change to private */ This just makes it uniform which imho has merit on its own. If using shifts is considered a valid counter argument because for lack of ease to analyze struct fields then the values for MS_* flags in fs.h should probably all be hex values. In any case, I'm not going to bikeshed over this. The two patches can simply be left out when applying or I can change it all over to hex values. Christian
