> Yeah, was going to do that anyway. But since I'm touching the code > anyway, this might be an opportunity to avoid constructs like this: > > if (!invoke_tx_handlers(tx)) > /* continue sending the packet */ > > Most other succeed/fail functions seem to be of type bool, so it > would help consistency as well. Unless there is some particular > reason why this function happens to be using 0 to indicate success? > It's just convention in the kernel, really. IMHO if a function has a bool return value it should be have a more expressive name that indicates better what's going on, like e.g. bool ieee80211_is_radar_required(...); but of course that's not always done. johannes
