Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1416419951-27659-1-git-send-email-stevenrwalter@gmail.com> <20141120113813.GA23288@t440s.lan> <80321467-10AB-489E-A47E-44B0ECEE4BE1@holtmann.org> From: Steven Walter Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:53:52 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: automatically flushable packets aren't allowed on LE links To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Johan Hedberg , "Gustavo F. Padovan" , BlueZ development , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-ID: On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Steven Walter wrote: >> > 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? -- -Steven Walter