Hi Marcel, Peter, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:24:33PM -0800, Peter Krystad wrote: > Hi Marcel, Andrei, > > > Hi Andrei, > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > > > index 4a0391e..360b44c 100644 > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > > > @@ -2303,15 +2305,28 @@ static inline void hci_sched_acl(struct hci_dev *hdev) > > > > > > skb = skb_dequeue(&chan->data_q); > > > > > > + if (hdev->flow_ctl_mode == > > > + HCI_FLOW_CTL_MODE_BLOCK_BASED) > > > + /* Calculate count of blocks used by > > > + * this packet > > > + */ > > > + blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(skb->len - > > > + HCI_ACL_HDR_SIZE, hdev->block_len); > > > > would it not be more efficient to have to functions here? One > > hci_sched_acl_block and one hci_sched_acl_pkt which implement the > > specific details of the flow control mode. And the hci_sched_acl would > > just decide which on to call once. > > There has to be a check for which flow control mode is used by the device somewhere, and > this fragment is really the only difference between the two modes, in separate functions > the rest would be duplicate code. I feel the same, we can still make a function like: blocks = __get_blocks(hdev, skb); would this be better? > > > + > > > + if (blocks > hdev->acl_cnt) > > > + return; > > > + > > > hci_conn_enter_active_mode(chan->conn, > > > bt_cb(skb)->force_active); > > > > Now an important question that comes up here. The support for the power > > save mode (sniff mainly) and AMP controllers is fully pointless. We need > > to actually make sure we don't try to put an AMP controller into sniff > > mode since that seems like an attempt for failure. We can test for BREDR controller in hci_conn_enter_active_mode function. This function is already too big. Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko -- 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
