On Thu, 2004-12-30 11:16:49 -0500, Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <1104423409.23254.9.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 04:48, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-12-30 03:48:34 -0500, David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote in message <20041230035000.10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > +enum {
> > > + XFRM_STATE_DIR_UNKNOWN,
> > > + XFRM_STATE_DIR_IN,
> > > + XFRM_STATE_DIR_OUT,
> > > +};
> >
> > Any specific reason to first define such a nice enum and then using int
> > in the struct?
>
> Just following the current style in net/xfrm.h, see xfrm_state.km.state
> and XFRM_STATE_*.
Hmmm... Maybe I'd prepare patches then :)
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|