On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:17:12 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice? > >> > >> Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely! > >> > >> I think just using decimal would be more confusing than explicitly > >> calling it out like: > >> > >> /* begin enumerated (not bitmask) socket option specifiers */ > >> #define TCP_MAXSEG 0x02 /* set maximum segment size */ > >> #define TCP_NOPUSH 0x04 /* don't push last block of write */ > >> #define TCP_NOOPT 0x08 /* don't use TCP options */ > >> #define TCP_MD5SIG 0x10 /* use MD5 digests (RFC2385) */ > >> /* end enumerated socket option specifiers */ > > I have a patch I'll post next which will add a new option as '3'. I think > > that > > will make it more obvious and avoid having new options follow the old > > pattern. > > > Any objection to adding the contents of that email as a comment > section? It really would help.
We don't generally do this for other enumerations like ioctl values as it is generally obvious to the reader. I think for UDP having one constant called '1' should be obvious enough. TCP might indeed warrany a comment since it has several existing values that are powers of 2. How about this: /* * User-settable options (used with setsockopt). These are discrete * values and should not be masked together. Many values appear to be * bitmasks for legacy reasons. */ -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"