On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:41:03PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 03:28:16PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 2010-07-21 15:21, Simon Horman wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 2010-07-21 03:21, Simon Horman wrote:
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY (1 << 0) /* all other options imply this one */
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_PROTO (1 << 1)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VADDR (1 << 2)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VPORT (1 << 3)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_DIR (1 << 4)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_METHOD (1 << 5)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VPORTCTL (1 << 6)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_MASK ((1 << 7) - 1)
> > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_ONCE_MASK (XT_IPVS_MASK & ~XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY)
> > >>
> > >> Can't these just be an enum?
> > >
> > >More than one option can be used at once - they form a mini bitmap -
> > >so no, I don't think we can use an enum.
> >
> > An enum does not dictate that you cannot combine values of it with itself.
> >
> > enum { A = 1 << 0, B = 1 << 0, };
> > unsigned int flags = A | B;
> >
> > is perfectly fine, which is what other modules do.
>
> Understood. I'll make it so.
Hi Jan,
I must confess that I'm not familiar with using enum in this way.
Can I confirm that you are suggesting the following?
enum {
XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY = 1 << 0, /* all other options imply this one */
XT_IPVS_PROTO = 1 << 1,
XT_IPVS_VADDR = 1 << 2,
XT_IPVS_VPORT = 1 << 3,
XT_IPVS_DIR = 1 << 4,
XT_IPVS_METHOD = 1 << 5,
XT_IPVS_VPORTCTL = 1 << 6,
XT_IPVS_MASK = (1 << 7) - 1,
XT_IPVS_ONCE_MASK = (XT_IPVS_MASK & ~XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY)
};
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
