On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 17:57 -0500, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote: > In message <1352667081.9449.135.ca...@shinybook.infradead.org>,David > Woodhouse writes: > >Acked-by: David Woodhouse <david.woodho...@intel.com> for your new > >version of patch #6 (returning DROP_PACKET for !VF_READY), and your > >followup to my patch #8, adding the 'need_wakeup' flag. Which we might > >as well merge into (the pppoatm part of) my patch. > > > >Chas, are you happy with the generic ATM part of that? And the > >nomenclature? I didn't want to call it 'release_cb' like the core socket > >code does, because we use 'release' to mean something different in ATM. > >So I called it 'unlock_cb' instead... > > i really would prefer not to use a strange name since it might confuse > larger group of people who are more familiar with the traditional meaning > of this function. vcc_release() isnt exported so we could rename it if > things get too confusing. > > i have to look at this a bit more but we might be able to use release_cb > to get rid of the null push to detach the underlying protocol. that would > be somewhat nice.
In the meantime, should I resend this patch with the name 'release_cb' instead of 'unlock_cb'? I'll just put a comment in to make sure it isn't confused with vcc_release(), and if we need to change vcc_release() later we can. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
