Re: [PATCH v3 8/7] pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm_send()

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]

On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 17:57 -0500, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
> In message <1352667081.9449.135.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>,David Woodhouse writes:
> >Acked-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@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


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 6171 bytes --]