On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:39:32PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > The old name 'defaultval' was misleading - it is not the default value, > but the value the option has when used as a flag by an user. Hmmm - ok, what we have here is the difference between design intent and the current use of the field. The design intent is that the defaultval field can contain the default value for any type of config field. It gets used when a user either doesn't specify the option or doesn't specify a value for the option that is being parsed. The special "need value" value tells the code that there isn't a defined default that can be used, so the option must be specified with a value. The current implementation only contains default values for flag fields, but that doesn't mean we can't use it for fields that are not flags. And if that's the case, then renaming the field "flagval" isn't the right thing to do.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
