From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9379A29DF9 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:13:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2A7AC004 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ZBYCbqzEbf5Nfx8i for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:13:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:13:03 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] mkfs: factor boolean option parsing Message-ID: <20131202231303.GB10988@dastard> References: <1385689430-10103-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1385689430-10103-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20131202104631.GD21394@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131202104631.GD21394@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:46:31AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:43:40PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > Many of the options passed to mkfs have boolean options (0 or 1) and > > all hand roll the same code and validity checks. Factor these out > > into a common function. > > > > Note that the lazy-count option is now changed to match other > > booleans in that if you don't specify a value, it reverts to the > > default value (on) rather than throwing an error. Similarly the -m > > crc and -n ftype options default to off rather than throwing an > > error. > > Looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Unrelated question that came up when reading through this patch: > > should we start deprecating some options that have long been the > default, like lazy-count or attrv1? Yes, we probably should. I'll put that at the end of the series when it's just a trivial case of adding a flag to the relevant options and adding a check and warning.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs