On 3/15/17 8:59 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Change subopt_param.conflicts from array of integers into array of structures.
> This prepares the ground for more universal conflict detection in future
> patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> index 5e15fee2..c9861409 100644
> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> @@ -93,8 +93,16 @@ unsigned int sectorsize;
> *
> * conflicts MANDATORY
> * If your subopt is in a conflict with some other option, specify it.
> - * Accepts the .index values of the conflicting subopts and the last
> - * member of this list has to be LAST_CONFLICT.
> + * Accepts the .index values of the conflicting subopt as .opt (e.g. OPT_D)
> + * and .subopt (e.g. D_FILE). If .test_values is true, then the conflict
> + * is raised only when the "remote" suboption .value is equal to
> + * .invalid_value field and the "current" suboption has .value equal to
> + * .at_value.
> + * If .test_values is false, a conflict is raised when the suboption appears
> + * on the CLI, no matter its value. The field .message contains an optional
> + * explanatory string for the user. This string can't be translated here,
> + * so it has to be enveloped with _() when printed.
You also still need to mark each string initializer you added in the array
in patch 08 with N_(" ... ") or gettext won't know about it.
(I think that's the right way to go about it)
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
