From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 26 10:12:08 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EE737B404
	for <cvs-src@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79A8B43FEA
	for <cvs-src@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 74962 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Jun 2003 17:12:07 -0000
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030626114023.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030626100854.P74937@root.org>
References: <XFMail.20030626114023.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org>
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: 
	RE: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ips ips.c ips.h ips_commands.c ips_pci.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:08 -0000

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> Should be "hint.ips.0.disabled".  Perhaps we need to add a resource_disabled()
> function to abstract this so people stop getting it wrong.  Something like:

With you so far...

> You could then expand this function to check 'disable' as well if
> desired and allow for 'true' and 'false', 'on' and 'off' in addition
> to '0' and '1'.

...And then you lost me.  :)  I think that binary flags should only have
one way to set/clear them.  Adding options only increases confusion (i.e.
what about TRUE or yes/no)?  The int approach seems ok.

-Nate