From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: chas williams - CONTRACTOR Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/7] pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm_send() Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:23:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20121127102333.68ac3234@thirdoffive.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> References: <201211112257.qABMvhP4021769@thirdoffive.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> <1354022867.26346.334.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Krzysztof Mazur , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: David Woodhouse Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1354022867.26346.334.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:27:47 +0000 David Woodhouse wrote: > > 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. > yes, but dont call it 8/7 since that doesnt make sense.