xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/15] mkfs: factor boolean option parsing

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] mkfs: factor boolean option parsing
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:13:03 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131202104631.GD21394@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1385689430-10103-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1385689430-10103-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131202104631.GD21394@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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 <hch@xxxxxx>
> 
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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