> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: testsuite process helpers [PATCH] > > Yes, I suppose you're right. Unless we do some magic with > rw_error() and other diagnostic functions: > > rw_error(0, 0, 0); // disables counting errors > rw_error(0, 1, 0); // disables issuing > rw_error(1, 0, 0); // enables counting > rw_error(1, 1, 0); // enables counting and issuing > > Each call returns the previous state of the diagnostic setting. > Or something like that. > > > > > I propose add two functions enable_diag() / > disable_diag(), or just > > enable_diag(bool enable) > > to the driver (and use any unused bit in _rw_diag_mask). We > can publish > > the _rw_diag_mask > > along with enum diag_t later when it's will be required. > > That would be another option. Which one of the two approaches > do you like better?
I like the variant with rw_enable_diag(bool) because it's requires the minimal changes to the driver and gives exactly what is needed. I not see the situation when we need temporary disable some diag type (or set of diag types) yet. The variant with rw_error(0, 0, 0) and other diagnostic functions is good and flexible, but it's not clear as for me. Farid.
