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 -- 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
