On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <stevenrwalter@xxxxxxxxx> -- 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
