From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:46:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1120816072.30164.10.camel@localhost> <1120816229.30164.13.camel@localhost> <1120817463.30164.43.camel@localhost> <84144f0205070804171d7c9726@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Ram , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , mike@waychison.com, bfields@fieldses.org, Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:42162 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262623AbVGHMqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:46:48 -0400 To: Pekka J Enberg In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > +#define PNODE_MEMBER_VFS 0x01 > > > > +#define PNODE_SLAVE_VFS 0x02 > > > > Enums, please. > > Roman Zippel writes: > > Is this becoming a requirement now? I personally would rather leave that to > > personal preference... > > Hey, I just review patches. I don't get to set requirements. There's a reason > why enums are preferred though. They define a proper name for the constant. Who prefers that? > It's far to easy to mess up with #defines. Rather unlikely with such simple masks. > They also document the code intent > much better as you can group related constants together. You can't do that with defines? bye, Roman