Add RESTORE_MODE_DISABLED to RestoreMode

chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h

Index: chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h b/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h
index 3581617993407717a0c18fd5ddce5f8920f21917..2c183864b56a13addbf965032a4e4e092792fdd7 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/server_backed_device_state.h
@@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ namespace policy {
 // Dictionary key constants for prefs::kServerBackedDeviceState.
 extern const char kDeviceStateManagementDomain[];
 extern const char kDeviceStateRestoreMode[];
-extern const char kDeviceStateDisabled[];
 extern const char kDeviceStateDisabledMessage[];
 
 // Values for kDeviceStateRestoreMode.
 extern const char kDeviceStateRestoreModeReEnrollmentEnforced[];
 extern const char kDeviceStateRestoreModeReEnrollmentRequested[];
+extern const char kDeviceStateRestoreModeDisabled[];

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2014/10/29 17:41:35]

Are we positive behavior will be identical for both lost and stolen cases? If
not, we might introduce two different identifiers here.

On the other hand, I guess we can always deprecated disabled and add
finer-grained identifiers when needed later.

[bartfab (slow), 2014/10/30 14:10:32]

Yes, we are positive on that. The UI designers are worried that "lock session"
and "lock device" are confusing already. If we were to add "lock stolen device"
vs. "lock lost device", peoples' heads would explode.

 
 }  // namespace policy