On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:11:06AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:54:57PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > >> Add functions that can be used to get/set values to opts table. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > >> index c2ffd91..4caf93c 100644 > >> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > >> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c > >> @@ -786,6 +786,38 @@ get_conf_raw(int opt, int subopt) > >> return opts[opt].subopt_params[subopt].raw_input; > >> } > >> > >> +static uint64_t getnum(const char *str, struct opt_params *opts, int index); > > > > Why not just move getnum() above here. Forward declarations IMHO should not be > > needed unless we have odd inclusion issues and I don't think that's the case > > here ? > > Getnum requires set_conf_raw and illegal_option, but it seems that > they could be moved too. I think there is no circle dependency, I just > didn't want to move so many lines when I can do one declaration. But > if the declaration is an issue, I can shuffle the ~80 lines the three > functions takes. If we can avoid it I don't see why not, the forward declarations, if not needed IMHO just leads to lazy code practices. The shift of code up above could / should be a separate atomic patch as it would be easier to review later. Luis -- 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
