On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:33:43PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Nelio >[...] > > > > I am expecting to find something related to a link update, what I see is an > > alarm update. I don't expect to update an alarm but a link. The names and > > action are inconsistent i.e. mlx5_dev_link_status_handler() should handle a > > link not an alarm. > > > > I understand there is a need to add more function levels, but the > > priv_link_status_alarm_update() should be renamed to something like > > priv_link_status_update(). > > OK, I think I understand you. > > Because the alarm is a workaround you don't think it should be mentioned > in function description or function name. > (also the function subject should be the link status and not the alarm) > I can agree with you about it. > And I will create v2 with your suggestion - priv_link_status_update.
Thanks, > The return value description can stay as in old code semantic: > Zero if the callback process can be called immediately. > > Are you agree? Yes. > Maybe we can tell something about the alarm and inconsistent reason > In this function description or internal comment for future code review. > If you want it, please suggest comment. Yes the comment can added internally. Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND
