On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > If others feel strongly about this, I don't mind changing it as > Christoph suggests but > - to samba people, "incrementing the rfc1001 length" would be more > recognizable (than opencoding the be32_add_cpu macro), and the > function name was > actually Jeff's suggestion which I liked. I don't mind the rfc1001 length per se. What's totally braindead about this is having an absolutely trivial wrapper for incrementing a field, which has a different name than the field it increments. If you feel strongly about the rfc1001 length just rename the field. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
