From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070506195230.GA30339@mellanox.co.il> <7vhcqpbs78.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070510095156.GC13655@mellanox.co.il> <81b0412b0705100439j4e6b072bk1ba19a4f971e5d0c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 10 18:05:41 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HmB8j-0006tU-Vd for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:05:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754627AbXEJQFK (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 12:05:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755172AbXEJQFK (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 12:05:10 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:42918 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754627AbXEJQFI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 12:05:08 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l4AG51Yp022221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 May 2007 09:05:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l4AG50Jn024679; Thu, 10 May 2007 09:05:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0705100439j4e6b072bk1ba19a4f971e5d0c@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.48 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.12__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 65.172.181.25 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 10 May 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > There is only one bit of flags ever used. What are the others for? I actually think it tends to be better to have a "flags" field rather than a boolean, even if it only ends up having one flag. > Why use negative logic? This one I agree with. Ity would be nicer with CONNECT_VERBOSE than with NET_QUIET, and having the tests be if (flags & CONNECT_VERBOSE) .. instead. > What was wrong with plain "int verbose"? I could see wanting to add flags to do things like disable insecure connections etc, so there's certainly nothing saying that "verbose" is the only valid way to do things. > What addresses were tried by connect? That would be _really_ verbose. Maybe a CONNECT_EXTRA_VERBOSE? Linus