Hi Marcel, Gustavo,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:13:31PM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > +static inline void __l2cap_set_sock_err(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int err)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sock *sk = chan->sk;
> > > +
> > > + sk->sk_err = err;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void l2cap_set_sock_err(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int err)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sock *sk = chan->sk;
> > > +
> > > + lock_sock(sk);
> > > + __l2cap_set_sock_err(chan, err);
> > > + release_sock(sk);
> > > +}
> >
> > I think we better call this l2cap_chan_set_sock_err(). Sounds kinda
> > long, but makes it a bit more clearer what it does.
>
> Or l2cap_chan_set_err() since this will be made generic once the separation
> between core and sock is done.
So which of the proposed names better to use? Both looks OK.
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
