From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:36934 "EHLO mail-it0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751062AbdCQMGq (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:06:46 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id g138so22757266itb.0 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:06:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170316232000.GW28800@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170315160017.27805-1-jtulak@redhat.com> <20170315160017.27805-15-jtulak@redhat.com> <20170316232000.GW28800@wotan.suse.de> From: Jan Tulak Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:06:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/22] mkfs: rename defaultval to flagval in opts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:00:09PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote: >> The old name 'defaultval' was misleading - it is not the default value, >> but the value the option has when used as a flag by an user. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak >> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c >> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c >> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ unsigned int sectorsize; >> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ struct opt_params { >> } conflicts [MAX_CONFLICTS]; >> long long minval; >> long long maxval; >> - long long defaultval; >> + long long flagval; > > David suggested that in the future the config value(mkfs.xfs.conf) will override > the defaultval, in this case since you are renaming this, just want to be sure > the new name we choose can fit its later use also with the config. Perhaps > userval ? > > Luis Your question is exactly why I'm renaming it. :-) This is not the value that is used when no option is passed, but when an option doesn't have an argument. So we don't require "-m crc=0|1", but "-m crc" is enough. Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me