Return-Path: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: automatically flushable packets aren't allowed on LE links From: Marcel Holtmann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:16:47 +0900 Cc: Johan Hedberg , "Gustavo F. Padovan" , BlueZ development , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Message-Id: <50D951D4-0A99-4D77-814C-D80A209B3D4F@holtmann.org> References: <1416419951-27659-1-git-send-email-stevenrwalter@gmail.com> <20141120113813.GA23288@t440s.lan> <80321467-10AB-489E-A47E-44B0ECEE4BE1@holtmann.org> To: Steven Walter Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Steven, >>>> I think Marcel was after just providing a clarifying code comment in >>>> both places - having two branches of an if-statement doing exactly the >>>> same thing looks a bit weird to me. To make thins completely clear I'd >>>> suggest adding a simple helper function that you can call from both >>>> places to get the needed flags, something like the following: >>> >>> I am actually fine with just adding a comment explaining the complex if >>> statement on why it is correct. It is just a helper for everybody to >>> understand what and why it is done that way. >> >> >> Is the comment I added sufficient, or should I add one for the other if >> condition as well? To me, the second condition is pretty straightforward: >> if the caller requested it and the hardware supports it, use NO_FLUSH. The >> relationship between FLUSH/NO_FLUSH and low-energy is much less clear and >> more justifies a comment, in my opinion. > > Did a miss a reply to this? How would you like the next iteration of > the patch to look? can you just send a v4 and I have a look at it. I thing it is best to keep the original patch with the rather complicated if statement you had. And then add a comment in front of it, why it is that way and that it is correct this way. Regards Marcel