xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review: Simple patch to remove the dmapi support from xfsdump

To: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: review: Simple patch to remove the dmapi support from xfsdump
From: Dean Roehrich <dean.roehrich@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:03:24 -0500
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Vlad Apostolov <vapo@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44D3C351.7060109@sgi.com>
References: <44D10F9B.8090904@thebarn.com> <44D2CA85.3040208@sgi.com> <20060804141012.GA26@kickball-mn.Central.Sun.COM> <44D36985.1090006@thebarn.com> <20060804155850.GA3338@kickball-mn.Central.Sun.COM> <44D379A6.9040200@sgi.com> <44D38D34.1010503@thebarn.com> <44D3C351.7060109@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 04:59:45PM -0500, Bill Kendall wrote:

> -#define DMF_EV_BITS  ( (1<<DM_EVENT_DESTROY) | \
> -                       (1<<DM_EVENT_READ)    | \
> -                       (1<<DM_EVENT_WRITE)   | \
> -                       (1<<DM_EVENT_TRUNCATE) )
> +#define DMF_EV_BITS  ( (1<<16) | (1<<17) | (1<<18) | (1<<20) )

Don't do that.

Granted, those bits can never be changed else all of your customers will start
a lynch mob and come after you.

At the very least, don't allow those bits to be anonymous--copy that whole
enum from the dmapi header.  Even that I object to, but at least the bits will
_be_ something.

Dean


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>