On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:46:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Paul Irofti <[email protected]> > > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:12:01 +0300 > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > Sorry, yes. Adding the crs "index" as the last argument of the > callback function seems a bit non-intuitive to me. I'd say the void * > argument should remain the last argument, and the crs "number" should > be the first, although I could live with it being the second. > > I feel a bit bad though for not suggesting that earlier.
Sure, makes sense. I thought about doing that too, but I did not know how much breakage I could do to the original function. What about crsno, do you prefer it to be called crsidx? That might be a better name...
