On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:31:31PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>
>
> Am 06.12.2017 um 12:23 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:46:41AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > index babe597e2ec6..5247e9269de9 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
> > > > @@ -18,9 +18,9 @@
> > > > #ifndef RF69_ENUM_H
> > > > #define RF69_ENUM_H
> > > > -enum optionOnOff {
> > > > - optionOff,
> > > > - optionOn
> > > > +enum option_on_off {
> > > > + OPTION_OFF,
> > > > + OPTION_ON
> > > > };
> > > > enum mode {
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > nice work.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for all the style fixes :-)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Wow... This was the one patch I thought was going to sink this
> > patchset...
>
> I don't get that. What do you mean?
>
> > Isn't enum optionOnOff part of the userspace headers?
> >
> > I thought we weren't allowed to change that.
>
> All enums are for user space (or inteded to be used in userspace in future).
> Didn't introduce enums for internal use.
So what I'm asking is if we do this change, does it break any userspace
programs which are used *right now*. In other words will programs stop
compiling because we've renamed an enum?
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
