Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:57:33 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ips ips.c ips.h ips_commands.c ips_pci.c Message-ID: <XFMail.20030626135733.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030626100854.P74937@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26-Jun-2003 Nate Lawson wrote: > 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... Ok. >> 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. For an example, look at XF86Config which allows binary options to use all of the strings I mentioned above. This was just an optional feature anyway. I should have added "if you wanted" or some such to the end of my last sentence. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030626135733.jhb>