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

[Ram]

On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:11, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> So it basically comes down to personal preference, if the original uses 
> defines and it works fine, I don't really see a good enough reason to 
> change it to enums, so please leave the decision to author.

Ok. I will change to enums whereever I define new categories of
#defines. And leave the #defines for already existing category as is.

RP


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