Hi Mat, > >> Checks for valid policy value and L2CAP mode. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > >> index 836d12e..9431e38 100644 > >> --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > >> @@ -467,6 +467,11 @@ static int l2cap_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, ch > >> > >> break; > >> > >> + case BT_AMP_POLICY: > >> + if (put_user(chan->amp_policy, (u32 __user *) optval)) > >> + err = -EFAULT; > > > > I prefer to not just add such an option just yet. We only want to add > > socket option once they are functional. Otherwise we have problems to > > detect if such an option is working or not. So enabling this option > > should be the last patch after we have AMP implemented. > > My plan was to add checks for enable_hs before adding any code that > takes action based on amp_policy. Would it be acceptable to add those > enable_hs checks now so the code is in place, but disabled by default? > It would be helpful for development and testing. if it is protected enable_hs, then this is fine with me. Regards Marcel -- 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
