Re: [RFCv0 03/21] Bluetooth: Add L2CAP create channel request handling.

Hi Mat,

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 08:04:11AM -0700, Mat Martineau wrote:

quoted

quoted

-static void __l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
-			    u8 *data, u8 rsp_code, u8 amp_id)
+static struct l2cap_chan *__l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
+					  struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
+					  u8 *data, u8 rsp_code, u8 chan_id)

Do you think chan_id is better then amp_id? At least for channel connect amp_id
looks better.

When we were defining the socket option API, Marcel preferred
"channel policy" over "AMP policy", so I tried to keep terminology
more generic in this code as well.  That might not have been the
correct decision. I'm fine with anything: amp_id, chan_id,
controller_id, ...

I think amp_id and controller_id (or even remote_amp_id) are better names
since this is "the identifier of the Controller on the remote device
obtained via an AMP Manager Discover Available AMPs request."

chan_id is kind of identifier of a channel, a name would be messed with CID
which is already used for other purposes. I think the name channel policy
is also OK since it is a policy of a channel (for each channel we might
have different policy).

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko