On Jan 5, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Harald Barth wrote:
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?
It's done by passing arguments to the vos command on the appropriate command argument ;-)
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);
Harald definitely has a point here.
I don't like to rewrite all the code where DumpVolume, ... etc. is used and I think you shouldn't either.
This is Pascal style. C does not have a boolean type, so it is not necessary to construct a FALSE.
Has anybody tested that on different platforms and with different AFS versions (I mean like interaction with old servers)??
Horst
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
