From: Andrei Emeltchenko <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: Define L2CAP conf continuation flag
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:10:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120521121017.GA30424@aemeltch-MOBL1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337360100.2058.12.camel@aeonflux>
Hi Marcel,
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:55:00AM -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > +/* conf req/rsp continuation flag */
> > +#define L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_CLEARED 0
> > +#define L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_SET 1
> > +
>
> this is misleading. Even while the only defined flag is currently the
> continuation flag, it is clearly not limited to it.
>
> I am fine with introducing L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONTINUATION
This looks good one.
> > - req->flags = cpu_to_le16(0);
> > + req->flags = cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_CLEARED);
>
> And as a side note, this should be __constant_cpu_to_le16(0).
>
> > - rsp->flags = cpu_to_le16(0x0000);
> > + rsp->flags = cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_CLEARED);
>
> Same here, __constant_cpu_to_le16(0) is the right call.
>
> > - req->flags = cpu_to_le16(0x0000);
> > + req->flags = cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_CLEARED);
>
> And here as well.
>
> No idea on how we kept missing to change this all the time.
I will change this to the way you recommended.
>
> >
> > return ptr - data;
> > }
> > @@ -3218,11 +3218,11 @@ static inline int l2cap_config_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr
> > memcpy(chan->conf_req + chan->conf_len, req->data, len);
> > chan->conf_len += len;
> >
> > - if (flags & 0x0001) {
> > + if (flags & L2CAP_CONF_FLAG_CONT_SET) {
> > /* Incomplete config. Send empty response. */
> > l2cap_send_cmd(conn, cmd->ident, L2CAP_CONF_RSP,
> > l2cap_build_conf_rsp(chan, rsp,
> > - L2CAP_CONF_SUCCESS, 0x0001), rsp);
> > + L2CAP_CONF_SUCCESS, flags), rsp);
>
> Here you are actually changing behavior. If flags ever has more than one
> option, you are returning the other flags as well.
I will create separate patch with this change. Currently there is only one
flag defined this is why I made such a simplifications in the patch. I
feel that using flags instead of 0x0001 looks more readable and shall be
the same.
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-21 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-18 14:20 [PATCH 1/2] Bluetooth: Use defined link key size Andrei Emeltchenko
2012-05-18 14:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: Define L2CAP conf continuation flag Andrei Emeltchenko
2012-05-18 16:55 ` Marcel Holtmann
2012-05-21 12:10 ` Andrei Emeltchenko [this message]
2012-05-18 14:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] Bluetooth: Use defined link key size Johan Hedberg
2012-05-21 12:25 ` Andrei Emeltchenko
2012-05-18 16:30 ` Marcel Holtmann
2012-05-21 12:10 ` [PATCHv2 1/3] " Andrei Emeltchenko
2012-05-21 12:10 ` [PATCHv2 2/3] Bluetooth: Define L2CAP conf continuation flag Andrei Emeltchenko
2012-05-21 12:11 ` [PATCHv2 3/3] Bluetooth: Preserve flags values Andrei Emeltchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120521121017.GA30424@aemeltch-MOBL1 \
--to=andrei.emeltchenko.news@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox