Hi Johan, * Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-11-08 14:33:30 +0200]: > Hi Gustavo, > > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010, Gustavo F. Padovan wrote: > > Here are some patches that try to fix the mess of reporting error to > > DBus inside BlueZ. It follows the oFono and ConnMan error system. > > > > The goal is to get ride of any directly call to g_dbus_create_error() > > inside bluez code, changing that to __btd_error_*. This patch set > > doesn't fix all of them yet, but is a very good start. Please review. > > > > > > Gustavo F. Padovan (9): > > Create __btd_error_invalid_args() > > Add __btd_error_already_exists() > > Add __btd_error_not_supported() > > Add __btd_error_not_connected() > > Add __btd_error_in_progress() > > Add __btd_error_not_available() > > Add __btd_error_busy() > > Add __btd_error_does_not_exist() > > Add __btd_error_not_authorized() > > The patches seem fine to me, but before pushing upstream I'd like to > understand the reason for prefixing these with with __btd instead of > btd. What's the criteria used to decide what to use and when and why is > __btd the correct choice for these new functions? My first guess would > have been that __btd is for things only accessible by the core-daemon > whereas btd is for functions exported to plugins, but that doesn't seem > to be the case with your patches since many of these __btd functions get > called from plugins. I just followed oFono and ConnMan on this. That is the reason and I didn't asked myself why have a __ in this case.. But I see your point. Do you think that change that to btd_error_* will fit better inside BlueZ? I can change that then. -- Gustavo F. Padovan ProFUSION embedded systems - http://profusion.mobi -- 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
