search for: target_is_zero_option

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "target_is_zero_option".

2023 Apr 14
3
[libnbd PATCH v2 0/3] copy: wrap source code at 80 characters
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172516 v1: https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2023-April/031258.html Please refer to the Notes section in each patch for the v2 updates. BR, Laszlo Laszlo Ersek (3): copy: rename DESTINATION_IS_ZERO_OPTION to TARGET_IS_ZERO_OPTION copy: fix layout of "long_options" table copy: rewrap error message about stuck NBD server copy/file-ops.c | 4 +- copy/main.c | 44 ++++++++++---------- copy/multi-thread-copying.c | 2 +- copy/nbd-ops.c | 5 ++- copy/nbdcopy.h...
2023 Apr 14
1
[libnbd PATCH 1/4] copy: rename (LONG|SHORT)_OPTIONS to (LONG|SHORT)_OPTIONS_OPTION
...in these four other files, just for consistency's sake, seems overkill. Instead, I think we should pick a different approach for "copy/main.c". In the strictest sense, I only need to shorten DESTINATION_IS_ZERO_OPTION by three characters. Should I rename it to DEST_IS_ZERO_OPTION, or TARGET_IS_ZERO_OPTION? (The latter is better, because we already have a "--target-is-zero" long option, aliasing "--destination-is-zero".) So I'd replace patches #1 and #2 with that, and keep #3 and #4. Laszlo > > I was going to say that we use LONG_OPTIONS & SHORT_OPTIONS elsewhere...
2023 Apr 14
1
[libnbd PATCH 1/4] copy: rename (LONG|SHORT)_OPTIONS to (LONG|SHORT)_OPTIONS_OPTION
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Two of the enum constants that denote command line options are > inconsistently named with the rest: all identifiers should be > <purpose>_OPTION, but LONG_OPTIONS and SHORT_OPTIONS (which are supposed > to list the long and short options) don't conform. Rename them. > > Bugzilla: