Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 05:24:17PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:48 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Hmm, I thought when decode_combined flag is set to false means we will
> display the raw flags set on the tuple without any further
> interpretation. I think that is what is most people in thread
> advocated about.

Sorry if I created any confusion. When set to false then the raw list
of flags is returned, and that's the default. The example provided in
the docs is careful about that, as well as the description done for
the option (at least I guess so!).

> Yes, I think we could have more discussion on this point. It is not
> 100% clear how we should interpret this flag and or where to draw a
> line. It might be that whatever we have done is alright, but still,
> it is worth more discussion and opinion from a few more people.

Of course.

>> decode_combined sounds like a good compromise to me. If there is a
>> better consensus, well, let's use it, but I don't find those
>> suggestions to be improvements.
>
> I think it depends on the meaning of that flag.

Perhaps using "decode" is the confusing part here? It is more like a
"merge" of the flags, or just a combination of them. An idea that
just popped here would be to name the switch "combine_flags" instead.
--
Michael