From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:33:41 +0300 Message-ID: <1120851221.9655.17.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bryan Henderson , Andrew Morton , bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mike@waychison.com, Miklos Szeredi , Alexander Viro Return-path: Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:5304 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262810AbVGHTeN (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:34:13 -0400 To: Roman Zippel In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > So it basically comes down to personal preference, if the original uses > defines and it works fine, I don't really see a good enough reason to > change it to enums, so please leave the decision to author. (And I don't see a good enough reason to use #defines when you don't absolutely have to. This is what we disagree on.) Roman, it is not as if I get to decide for the patch submitters. I comment on any issues _I_ have with the patch and the authors fix whatever they want (or what the maintainers ask for). As I disagree with the part about enums being a personal preference, I will continue to comment on them in the future. If patch authors wish to ignore them (or any of my comments for that matter), that's ok with me. P.S. Working code is not enough for the kernel. It must be maintainable as well. Pekka