From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Convert between journal features and strings Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:41:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20080314204128.GD13733@mit.edu> References: <1205519369.3465.23.camel@alpha.linsyssoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ext4 Mailing List To: Girish Shilamkar Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:51159 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753012AbYCNUlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:41:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1205519369.3465.23.camel@alpha.linsyssoft.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:59:29PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote: > Hi Ted, > e2p_string2feature() and e2p_feature2string() can operate on ext2/3/4 > features list as there is only one struct feature feature_list[] and no > corresponding journal features list. > After introducing journal_checksum and journal_async_commit features, we > needed to display the features using debugfs which does it through the > two e2p_* functions. A new struct feature jrnl_feature_list[] was added. > The e2p_* functions were passed an additional argument so it can decide > which feature list to use. > Change in the APIs of e2p_* functions might not be acceptable so we have > an option to either make e2p_feature2string2() function or add > a new e2p_jnl_feature2string() > > Would like to know what will be preferred e2p_feature2string2() or > e2p_jnl_feature2string() ? Two new functions are definitely preferable to changing the ABI's of two existing functions. Regards, - Ted