From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 10:57:26 2003 Return-Path: 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 CFA6537B404 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E2343FE0 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 10745 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 17:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 26 Jun 2003 17:57:24 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5QHvLGI059666; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:57:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030626100854.P74937@root.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:57:33 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Nate Lawson cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Scott Long 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:57:27 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/