From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262776AbVGHTPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:15:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262782AbVGHTNc (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:13:32 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:54452 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262776AbVGHTLy (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:11:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:11:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Pekka J Enberg cc: Bryan Henderson , Andrew Morton , bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mike@waychison.com, Miklos Szeredi , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. bye, Roman