Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum

["Pekka J Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

Roman Zippel writes:
> > If it's really enumerated data types, that's fine, but this example was 
> > about bitfield masks.

Bryan Henderson writes:
> Ah.  In that case, enum is a pretty tortured way to declare it, though it 
> does have the practical advantages over define that have been mentioned 
> because the syntax is more rigorous.

I think the bit we're talking about is this: 

> Index: 2.6.12/fs/pnode.c
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null
> +++ 2.6.12/fs/pnode.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
> +
> +#define PNODE_MEMBER_VFS  0x01
> +#define PNODE_SLAVE_VFS   0x02

I don't see how the following is tortured: 

enum {
      PNODE_MEMBER_VFS  = 0x01,
      PNODE_SLAVE_VFS   = 0x02
}; 

In fact, I think it is more natural. An almost identical example even 
appears in K&R. 

                          Pekka 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/