Hi Peter, > > > > The code adds AMP HCI commands from A2MP protocol. HCI events are handled > > > > similar way as mgmt interface. amp_pending is a kind of copy of mgmt_pending. > > > > > > this is all kernel internal code with no interface to user space. I do > > > not see the need for such a complex infrastructure. Can not just have > > > proper callbacks or event callback table like with L2CAP. Or just > > > something similar. > > > > I see this as a simple callback. amp_pending is just keeping context of HCI > > command we need to handle. I also included reference counting since we had > > bad experience with l2cap and rfcomm. > > There does have to be some way to carry the A2MP message context while performing > local HCI operations to service the message. A2MP Get Remote Assoc requires multiple > HCI commands with data accumulated between the commands before the response can be > sent. I agree, but this amp_pending seems to be wrong. I talked about changing the init handling and at the same time we might can apply this to the A2MP handling. Why not just set a bit in hdev->dev_flags or maybe even hcon->dev_flags or something and based on that we do a nice async state machine that sends the commands and results in calling back into A2MP core when its finished. That seems a bit simpler to me and more aligned in a way I wanna redo the whole HCI command/event handling anyway. In addition we can just expose these flags via debugfs as text and have a nice way of knowing current states if something goes wrong. > > > As far as I see it, we get an A2MP command over L2CAP fixed channel, we > > > have to issue a HCI command or do some other task based on this and then > > > respond to it. We only have one user of this first of all. And second of > > > all, I think we can not really have pending A2MP commands anyway. This > > > is pretty much one command at a time (per ACL link). > > A2MP commands are serialized by the sender, so A2MP message context could be > associated with the hci_conn for BR-EDR. That is what I thought. Thanks for confirming. So using hcon->dev_flags seems like a possible way to make this a lot simpler. And if the sender misbehaves, we just reject that commands that way. Testing a flag is always cheaper then iterating a list. 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
