| To: | James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RTNETLINK] Convert RTM_* to enum |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:47:48 +1000 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Xine.LNX.4.44.0409142337130.28280-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| References: | <20040915020942.GA32721@gondor.apana.org.au> <Xine.LNX.4.44.0409142337130.28280-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:38:21PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > Having the enums as well as the defines is messy, I wonder if it's really > worth it. I think the enum is definitely worth it for reducing the churn on the MAX value. I personally don't see a point to the defines since the user-space appliations should not change behaviour based on compile-time settings. However, others seem to have a different opinion on that. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RTNETLINK] Convert RTM_* to enum, James Morris |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RTNETLINK] Convert RTM_* to enum, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RTNETLINK] Convert RTM_* to enum, James Morris |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RTNETLINK] Convert RTM_* to enum, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |