Hi Johan,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Claudio,
>
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011, Claudio Takahasi wrote:
>> +void btd_adapter_system_unlocked(struct btd_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> + if (!adapter->up)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + DBG("Unlocked");
>> +
>> + g_slist_foreach(adapter->devices, set_auto_connect, NULL);
>> +}
>
> While the concept seems fine I think you've got the wrong name for the
> function. You shouldn't assume that "system unlocked" is the only reason
> for enabling auto-connect for the devices. It's as if you'd be pushing
> policy into the core daemon ("if unlocked, then auto-connect"). Instead
> the function should be named according to what it does, e.g.
> btd_adapter_enable_auto_connect or btd_adapter_auto_connect_devices.
>
> Johan
Thanks for the feedback. I gonna rename the function. I was more
afraid of the concept, in theory it could be more generic, triggering
connections to other services.
But one step at a time, first we need to improve the handling of
multiple LE connection requests(Including LE passive scanning).
BR,
Claudio
--
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
