From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:55:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id lA79tXg3028455 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:55:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 20:55:30 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Deviation from XSDM in DM_EVENT_XXX Message-ID: <20071107095530.GJ995458@sgi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Manoj Kumar Pradhan Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 10:02:12AM +0530, Manoj Kumar Pradhan wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone tell me why XFS-DMAPI deviates in the enum DM_EVEN_XXX > from the standard? >>From the spec: (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9657099/chap4.htm) " dm_eventtype_t REQUIREMENT This enumeration must contain at least the elements listed here. The DMAPI implementation may choose a different order for the elements. " So as long as we have the events defined, it doesn't matter what their value or order in the enum is. It's a very rubbery spec.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group