+//return 0 on success, (-1) on fail This is C++ style / C99. I know, there is other C99 stuff sneaking into the code - I have submitted patches to add -qlanglvl=stdc99 for the xlc (VAC) compiler, but I think we should keep the C99 stuff for places where it is adding functionality. Just /* ... */, ok?
+#define VOLRESTORE_Z 65535 +#define VOLFORWARD_Z 65534 +#define VOLDUMP_Z 65533 +#define VOLFORWARDMULTIPLE_Z 65532 ... +proc RestoreZ( + IN afs_int32 toTrans, + IN afs_int32 flags, + IN struct restoreCookie *cookie, + IN afs_int32 compress, + IN afs_int32 level +) split = VOLRESTORE_Z; Do we want to implement compression as seperate calls for every thing that we want to compress or should we be able to switch it on/off like encryption? Remind me: Did we write something down on how to agree on new calls? +/* Start a dump and send it to multiple places simultaneously. + * If this returns an error (eg, return ENOENT), it means that + * none of the releases worked. If this returns 0, that means + * that one or more of the releases worked, and the caller has + * to examine the results array to see which one(s). + * This will only do EITHER incremental or full, not both, so it's + * the caller's responsibility to be sure that all the destinations + * need just an incremental (and from the same time), if that's + * what we're doing. + */ This may be good but not "compression" ;-) There is a lot of func(...., compress, level). Is it possible to write this a bit differently so we don't need to drag around two additional arguments everywere? +int *compress; ... + *compress = (0==1); This is Pascal style. C does not have a boolean type, so it is not necessary to construct a FALSE. Harald. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
