Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> In other words, at some point wouldn't we be better off with
>> something like this
>>
>> struct {
>> enum id;
>> const char *id_string;
>> enum error_level { FSCK_PASS, FSCK_WARN, FSCK_ERROR };
>> } possible_fsck_errors[];
>
> I considered that, and Michael Haggerty also suggested that in a private
> mail. However, I find that there is a clear hierarchy in the default
> messages: fatal errors, errors, warnings and infos.
I am glad I am not alone ;-)
These classes are ordered from more severe to less, but I do not
think it makes much sense to force the default view of "if you
customize to demote a questionable Q that is classified as an error
by default as an warning, you must demote all the other ones that we
deem less serious than Q, which come earlier (or later---I do not
remember which) in our predefined list". So in that sense, I do not
consider that various kinds of questionables fsck can detect are
hierarchical at all.
I do agree that it makes it easier to code the initialization of
such an array to have "up to this point we assign the level 'fatal
error' by default" constants. Then the initialization can become
for (i = 0; i < FIRST_WARN; i++)
possible_fsck_errors[i].error_level = FSCK_INFO;
while (i < FIRST_ERROR)
possible_fsck_errors[i++].error_level = FSCK_WARN;
while (i < ARRAY_SIZE(possible_fsck_errors))
possible_fsck_errors[i++].error_level = FSCK_ERROR;
or something. So I am not against the FIRST_WARNING constant at
all, but I find it very questionable in a fully customizable system
to use such a constant anywhere other than the initialization time.
--
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
