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