On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:37:03AM +0000, Anders Selhammer wrote: > > +int process_signaling(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m) > > I suggest: port_signaling_tx or port_signaling_process or > port_process_signaling
That would break the pattern. We already have: int process_announce(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); void process_delay_resp(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); void process_follow_up(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); int process_pdelay_req(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); int process_pdelay_resp(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); void process_pdelay_resp_fup(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); void process_sync(struct port *p, struct ptp_message *m); Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
