Am 05.12.2011 15:12, schrieb Hemant Gupta:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Hendrik Sattler
<post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Am 05.12.2011 12:46, schrieb Hemant Gupta:
+static int mgmt_passkey_reply(int index, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
uint32_t
passkey)
+{
+ char buf[MGMT_HDR_SIZE + sizeof(struct
mgmt_cp_user_passkey_reply)];
+ struct mgmt_hdr *hdr = (void *) buf;
+ size_t buf_len;
+ char addr[18];
+
+ ba2str(bdaddr, addr);
+ DBG("index %d addr %s passkey %06u", index, addr, passkey);
+
+ memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
+
+ if (passkey == INVALID_PASSKEY) {
+ struct mgmt_cp_user_passkey_neg_reply *cp;
+
+ hdr->opcode =
htobs(MGMT_OP_USER_PASSKEY_NEG_REPLY);
+ hdr->len = htobs(sizeof(*cp));
+ hdr->index = htobs(index);
+
+ cp = (void *) &buf[sizeof(*hdr)];
By definition, that the same as:
cp = (void *) (hdr + 1);
And you can do it in the same line as the definition of *cp.
I have tried to re-use the exisitng implementation in mgmtops.c. If
you
look at the implementation of mgmt_pincode_reply(), you would find
the
similar implementation. Are you suggesting that I should change the
existing implementation also, and prepare a patch accordingly or
only
specific to this API ?
Maybe this is a possible implementation start (in C99):
static int mgmt_passkey_neg_reply(int index, bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
{
struct {
struct mgmt_hdr hdr;
struct mgmt_cp_user_passkey_neg_reply cp;
} __packed buf = {
.hdr = {
.opcode = htobs(MGMT_OP_USER_PASSKEY_NEG_REPLY),
.len = htobs(sizeof(*buf.cp)),
.index = htobs(index),
},
.cp = {
....
},
};
/* write() and return */
....
}
No pointer casting or offset calculation, seperate functions for
neg_reply and reply.
But maybe you are right and this should be not be done in your patch...
HS
--
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
