Hi Johan,
On 15:43 Mon 06 Jun, Johan Hedberg wrote:
> Hi Vinicius,
>
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> > @@ -357,21 +375,16 @@ int smp_conn_security(struct l2cap_conn *conn, __u8 sec_level)
> > if (IS_ERR(hcon->hdev->tfm))
> > return 1;
> >
> > - switch (sec_level) {
> > - case BT_SECURITY_MEDIUM:
> > - /* Encrypted, no MITM protection */
> > - authreq = HCI_AT_NO_BONDING_MITM;
> > - break;
> > + if (test_bit(HCI_CONN_ENCRYPT_PEND, &hcon->pend))
> > + return -EINPROGRESS;
>
> This doesn't look right to me. Like hci_conn_security, smp_conn_security
> is supposed to be a boolean function by only returning 0 or 1. That's
> also how all places use it: "if (smp_conn_security(...))". So returning
> a negative error like this looks wrong.
Yeah, this is wrong. Was fixed in a later commit, but will fix here too.
Thanks.
>
> Johan
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
--
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
