Hi Ludovico,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 6:26 AM Ludovico de Nittis
<ludovico.denittis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What do you think about this patch? I saw that this was still pending
> while my other related ones have been merged. I'm not sure if you'd like
> some changes or if it simply fell through the cracks.
Let me check if it is not on patchwork, anyway you can always resend
when this happens.
> Regards,
> Ludovico de Nittis
>
> On 1/28/25 12:56 PM, Ludovico de Nittis wrote:
> > If setting WakeAllowed, or the device privacy, fails, we may end up in a
> > situation where `pending_flags` is still set to some `DEVICE_FLAG_*`
> > values, for example from `device_set_wake_allowed()` or
> > `adapter_set_device_flags()`.
> >
> > This can confuse further requests because they'll assume that there is
> > still a pending request in progress.
> > ---
> > src/adapter.c | 1 +
> > src/device.c | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/adapter.c b/src/adapter.c
> > index 5d4117a49..3eb343cbc 100644
> > --- a/src/adapter.c
> > +++ b/src/adapter.c
> > @@ -5580,6 +5580,7 @@ static void set_device_privacy_complete(uint8_t status, uint16_t length,
> > if (status != MGMT_STATUS_SUCCESS) {
> > error("Set device flags return status: %s",
> > mgmt_errstr(status));
> > + btd_device_set_pending_flags(dev, 0);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/src/device.c b/src/device.c
> > index e8bff718c..3c2337198 100644
> > --- a/src/device.c
> > +++ b/src/device.c
> > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ static void set_wake_allowed_complete(uint8_t status, uint16_t length,
> > dev->wake_id = -1U;
> > }
> > dev->pending_wake_allowed = FALSE;
> > + dev->pending_flags = 0;
> > return;
> > }
> >
>
>
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
