From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:12:34 +0300 From: Andrei Emeltchenko To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFCv1 3/6] Bluetooth: AMP: Add handle to hci_chan structure Message-ID: <20121010101232.GD7620@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <1349707932-10006-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> <1349707932-10006-4-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> <1349793991.27233.91.camel@aeonflux> <20121010083438.GB7620@aemeltch-MOBL1> <1349863676.27233.120.camel@aeonflux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1349863676.27233.120.camel@aeonflux> List-ID: Hi Marcel, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:07:56PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > > > > - > > > > +struct hci_chan *hci_chan_lookup_handle(struct hci_conn *hcon, __u16 handle); > > > > +struct hci_chan *hci_chan_lookup_handle_all(struct hci_dev *hdev, > > > > + __u16 handle); > > > > > > this naming is pretty bad. I have no idea what one function does > > > different compared to the other. Especially since none of them take a > > > hci_chan as argument, but start with that prefix. > > > > > > Would be the naming hci_conn_lookup_chan be a lot clearer? Or maybe > > > hci_chan_lookup_from_dev or similar. > > > > So are names like: > > > > hci_conn_lookup_hchan_by_handle > > since this one is only internal, you better have a shortcut version as > just a static helper inside that code. OK, will name this like __hci_chan_lookup_handle > > > hci_conn_lookup_hchan_from_hdev > > If we follow our naming convention then hci_chan_lookup_from_dev would > come closest. However since you only need one of these, then > hci_chan_lookup_handle would be fine and in sync with how we named > everything else. then this would be: hci_chan_lookup_handle Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko