Globals? What globals?
> Switch that will keep growing, BTW.
> would turn into complete mess two years down the road.
But this was written five and a half years ago, and I think it
still suffices.
> There are two different tasks - one of them is to decide which option we
> are dealing with and another - decode and act upon it. Mixing parsing
> and data conversion in that kind of situations is a Bad Thing(tm).
Possibly. I like the option parsing for each filesystem:
parse_mount_options((char *) data, SIZE(opts), opts);
and this does parse_and_assign. You do
while (more_tokens) {
t = type_of_next_token();
switch (t) {
case ...
}
}
where the type_of_next_token() does the parsing, and the switch
does the assigning. Much more code. Much uglier - but tastes differ.
The reason that I call it uglier is that you have the same, or
nearly the same code for each filesystem. But then discrepancies arise,
and things are not treated uniformly across filesystems. A single
parser and assigner forces uniformity.
You have a coherency problem. In
+enum { Opt_mode, ...};
+
+static match_table_t tokens = {
+ {Opt_mode, "mode=%o"},
...
+ case Opt_mode:
+ mode = match_octal(args);
+ break;
the %o must correspond to the match_octal().
But that is unfortunate duplication.
That same code is
{ "mode", OPT_INT_8, 0, &mode},
for me. Not only much more compact, but no coherency problem either.
Of course one might write
{ "mode", "%o", 0, &mode},
to save the reader the trouble of looking up what OPT_INT_8 means.
If you see strange warts in my parser it is mostly because
it was a patch without user-visible changes, so all existing
msdos option peculiarities had to be accommodated.
Once such code is in place one needs a very good reason to
invent option syntax not covered by it.
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/