Hi Nick,
> >> >> Right now Bluez always requests flushable ACL packets (but does not
> >> >> set a flush timeout, so effectively they are non-flushable):
> >> >>
> >> >> However it is desirable to use an ACL flush timeout on A2DP packets so
> >> >> that if the ACL packets block for some reason then the LM can flush
> >> >> them to make room for newer packets.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it reasonable for Bluez to use the 0x00 ACL packet boundary flag by
> >> >> default (non-flushable packet), and let userspace request flushable
> >> >> packets on A2DP L2CAP sockets with the socket option
> >> >> L2CAP_LM_RELIABLE.
> >> >
> >> > the reliable option has a different meaning. It comes back from the old
> >> > Bluetooth 1.1 qualification days where we had to tests on L2CAP that had
> >> > to confirm that we can detect malformed packets and report them. These
> >> > days it is just fine to drop them.
> >>
> >> Got it, how about introducing
> >>
> >> #define L2CAP_LM_FLUSHABLE 0x0040
> >
> > that l2cap_sock_setsockopt_old() sets this didn't give you a hint that
> > we might wanna deprecate this socket options ;)
> >
> > I need to read up on the flushable stuff, but in the end it deserves its
> > own socket option. Also an ioctl() to actually trigger Enhanced flush
> > might be needed.
> >
> >> struct l2cap_pinfo {
> >> ...
> >> __u8 flushable;
> >> }
> >
> > Sure. In the long run we need to turn this into a bitmask. We are just
> > wasting memory here.
>
> Attached is an updated patch, that checks the LMP features bitmask
> before using the new non-flushable packet type.
>
> I am still using L2CAP_LM_FLUSHABLE socket option in
> l2cap_sock_setsockopt_old(), which I don't think you are happy with.
> So how about a new option:
>
> SOL_L2CAP, L2CAP_ACL_FLUSH
> which has a default value of 0, and can be set to 1 to make the ACL
> data sent by this L2CAP socket flushable.
>
> In a later commit we would then add
> SOL_ACL, ACL_FLUSH_TIMEOUT
> That is used to set an automatic flush timeout for the ACL link on a
> L2CAP socket. Note that SOL_ACL is new.
can I stop you right here (without even looking at the patch). We do
have the generic SOL_BLUETOOTH that you should be using. So adding
SOL_ACL is not a viable option at all.
Remember that it would also be nice if this works with RFCOMM sockets.
Even if the usefulness is limited for these sockets.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
