Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] read-tree: migrate to parse-options
- From
Stephen Boyd <bebarino@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 26, 2009, 03:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4A443D6D.7060009@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4A431F5E.6070109@viscovery.net>
Johannes Sixt wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> > If you write more than one mode of operation, the subsequent text should > better reference them, but the current text does not do that. I think it > is OK if you leave only the second, particularly because the first is only > a subset of the second.
I was contemplating this change, but I left it out because the single tree case felt special. So special that I felt the merging and the reading were two different modes. The description section hints at the two types of uses, but I think you want it to be more explicit? I'll have to think about this more.
> I don't think that the bitfields of struct unpack_trees_options are cast > in stone. IMHO it is fine to make them regular struct members, so that you > can take their address for read_tree_options and these foo ? 1 : 0 become > unnecessary
Thanks. I'll fix this up and resend the series.