Hi Marcel, On Wed, Nov 26, 2014, Marcel Holtmann 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? > > 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. Since this is moving way too slow for such a trivial patch I went ahead and added the necessary comments myself and pushed the patch upstream (to bluetooth-next). So no need to send new revisions of this one. Johan -- 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
