Hi Mat,
* Mat Martineau <mathewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-06-02 14:30:41 -0700]:
>
> Hi Gustavo -
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Gustavo F. Padovan wrote:
>
> >close() calls l2cap_sock_kill() on l2cap_sock.c
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Gustavo F. Padovan <padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> >include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h | 3 +--
> >net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> >net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c | 10 +++++++++-
> >3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> <snip>
>
> >--- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
> >+++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
> >@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ static int l2cap_sock_recvmsg(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock, struct ms
> >/* Kill socket (only if zapped and orphan)
> > * Must be called on unlocked socket.
> > */
> >-void l2cap_sock_kill(struct sock *sk)
> >+static void l2cap_sock_kill(struct sock *sk)
> >{
> > if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED) || sk->sk_socket)
> > return;
> >@@ -762,10 +762,18 @@ static int l2cap_chan_recv_cb(void *data, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > return sock_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb);
> >}
> >
> >+static void l2cap_chan_close_cb(void *data)
> >+{
> >+ struct sock *sk = data;
> >+
> >+ l2cap_sock_kill(sk);
> >+}
> >+
> >static struct l2cap_ops l2cap_chan_ops = {
> > .name = "L2CAP Socket Interface",
> > .new_connection = l2cap_chan_new_connection_cb,
> > .recv = l2cap_chan_recv_cb,
> >+ .close = l2cap_chan_close_cb,
> >};
> >
> >static void l2cap_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk)
>
>
> It looks like we'll have l2cap_ops for sock, rfcomm, and AMP's A2MP
> channel -- so I would suggest using unique names for the callbacks
> for each of those modules:
>
> l2cap_sock_new_connection_cb
> l2cap_sock_recv_cb
> l2cap_sock_close_cb
>
> l2cap_a2mp_new_connection_cb
> l2cap_a2mp_recv_cb
> l2cap_a2mp_close_cb
>
> etc., instead of "l2cap_chan_*_cb"
>
> Even though the functions are (or will be) static within their
> respective files, it will be less confusing if their names tie them
> to the specific module.
I'm not sure, what I'm trying to avoid here is create a false relation between
l2cap_sock_close and l2cap_sock_close_cb for example, thus I called it
l2cap_chan_close_cb. But unique names are indeed a good idea.
Maybe, l2cap_sock_chan_new_cb, l2cap_sock_chan_close_cb,
l2cap_sock_chan_recv_cb. But those are a bit big.
>
> I hope you can check these in to bluetooth-next soon, it would help
> with the patch set I'm working on.
Btw, I really want to fix this L2CAP mess before push any A2MP stuff into the
tree. A2MP code shouldn't touch sockets at all. I don't want to bring more
issues to the stack like the many we have for RFCOMM.
I intend to finish this soon. Patches are welcome. :)
--
Gustavo F. Padovan
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
