Hi Luiz,
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When sending an i-frame the first time unacked_frames is incremented
> which means we are waiting an ack and there is no need to send an ack
> since the i-frame itself already serve that purpose.
I'm not sure this message is correct even though the patch makes
sense. We _might_ be acking received unacked frames by sending an
i-frame so it makes sense to clear the ack timer. However,
unacked_frames means our frames which weren't acked yet by the remote
side. Right?
> Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> index 09cd860..e969677 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> @@ -1448,8 +1448,10 @@ static int l2cap_ertm_send(struct l2cap_chan *chan)
>
> chan->next_tx_seq = __next_seq(chan, chan->next_tx_seq);
>
> - if (bt_cb(skb)->retries == 1)
> + if (bt_cb(skb)->retries == 1) {
> chan->unacked_frames++;
> + __clear_ack_timer(chan);
> + }
>
> chan->frames_sent++;
Hmm, maybe we can clear ack timer only once if we check nsent in the
end of l2cap_ertm_send() instead of potentially call it several times?
Not sure if it's worth it or not, though.
Regards,
-- Ulisses
--
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
