Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:14:26PM +0800, Glenn Saberton wrote:
>> OK, maybe I get it right this time. So sorry for the noise I am
>> generating on the list, seems I am a slow learner.
>
> Your patches finally have the proper look! :) Thanks!
Finally :)
>
> One thing I am still unsure about:
>
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant != 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 0) {
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 2)
>> […]
>> + requested_wpa_supplicant = 1;
>> […]
>> + if (requested_wpa_supplicant == 1)
>> […]
>> +int requested_wpa_supplicant = 0;
>> […]
>> + requested_wpa_supplicant = 0;
>> […]
>> + requested_wpa_supplicant = 2;
>
> What means the different values for requested_wpa_supplicant? Wouldn't
> be better to use meaningful constants if you need something more than a
> boolean? In that case, wouldn't be better to change the variable name?
Agreed, I was going to make constants, but for some reason didn't.
Changing the variable name makes sense too.
>
> Cheers,
I'll address this in the next patch
Cheers
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
