On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> + Â Â /* Registration with ST layer is successful,
>>> + Â Â Â* hardware is ready to accept commands from HCI core.
>>> + Â Â Â*/
>>> + Â Â if (test_and_set_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags)) {
>>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â clear_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags);
>>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â err = st_unregister(ST_BT);
>>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â if (err)
>>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â BT_ERR("st_unregister() failed with error %d", err);
>>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â hst->st_write = NULL;
>>> + Â Â }
>>
>>
>> What are you trying to do here? test_and_set_bit() result doesn't say
>> nothing about error and you shall put test_and_set_bit should be in the
>> beginning, to know if your device is already opened or not and then
>> clear_bit if some error ocurrs during the function.
>>
>
> Yeap, this piece of code beats me is well. Why is it an error if this
> bit wasn't already set?
Vitaly, Gustavo,
I suppose I never understood HCI_RUNNING flag that way, as in an error
check mechanism to avoid multiple hci0 ups.
What I understood was that HCI_RUNNING suggested as to when hci0 was
ready to be used. With this understanding, I wanted to make sure I
downloaded the firmware for the chip before I proclaim to the world
that the hci0 is ready to be used, as in HCI_RUNNING.
For example, I didn't want my _send_frame to be called before I did
the firmware download - since firmware download takes time - 45kb
send/wait commands :(
But I suppose I now understand - What I would rather do is test_bit in
the beginning of function and do a set_bit at the end of function -
does this make sense ?
> ~Vitaly
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at Âhttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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
