Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
THis is not limited to this step, but
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] Introduce fsck options
please make it easier to cluster and spot the series in the eventual
shortlog by giving a common prefix to the patches, e.g.
fsck: introduce fsck_options struct
> +static struct fsck_options fsck_walk_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
> +static struct fsck_options fsck_obj_options = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
Is it a good idea to allow walker to be strict but obj verifier to
be not (or vice versa)? I am wondering why this is not a single
struct with two callback function pointers.
> +struct fsck_options {
> + fsck_walk_func walk;
> + fsck_error error_func;
> + int strict:1;
A signed 1-bit-wide bitfield can hold its sign-bit and nothing else,
no?
unsigned strict:1;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
