Re: [PATCH] adapter: Fix compilation on some architectures

[Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>]

Hi Szymon,

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > > --- a/src/adapter.c
> > > +++ b/src/adapter.c
> > > @@ -2673,7 +2673,7 @@ static void convert_ltk_entry(GKeyFile *key_file, void *value)
> > >  static void convert_entry(char *key, char *value, void *user_data)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct device_converter *converter = user_data;
> > > -	char device_type = -1;
> > > +	signed char device_type = -1;
> > >  	char filename[PATH_MAX + 1];
> > >  	GKeyFile *key_file;
> > >  	char *data;
> > 
> > Couldn't we just initialize the value to BDADDR_BREDR or maybe use an
> > int for it. And the naming is confusing as the value contains an address
> > type and not a device type.
> 
> Initializing it to BDADDR_BREDR wouldn't fix compilation as problem is in
> comparing >=0 when type is unsigned (and would change function flow as now
> device_set_type is called only if device_type is >=0)...  I'm not sure what
> was decided about storage changes so didn't wanted to fiddle with that.

I meant that you'd also then remove the test for >= 0 and always write
the type (defaulting to BR/EDR)

> So, if it is OK to always fall back to BDADDR_BREDR I can resent V2 with that
> change, else I can sent V2 with use of int if you prefer it over signed char.

I'd just default to BDADDR_BREDR. That's what entries without an
explicit type are going to be anyway since older BlueZ versions didn't
support LE.

Johan