Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > if (!hdev_is_powered(hdev)) {
> > + bool changed = false;
> > +
> > if (cp->val) {
> > + if (!test_and_set_bit(HCI_DISCOVERABLE,
> > + &hdev->dev_flags))
> > + changed = true;
> > set_bit(HCI_CONNECTABLE, &hdev->dev_flags);
> > - set_bit(HCI_DISCOVERABLE, &hdev->dev_flags);
> > - } else
> > - clear_bit(HCI_DISCOVERABLE, &hdev->dev_flags);
> > + } else {
> > + if (test_and_clear_bit(HCI_DISCOVERABLE,
> > + &hdev->dev_flags))
> > + changed = true;
> > + }
> > +
>
> does it really need to be this complicated? If we remove the set_bit for
> CONNECTABLE, then we can just send this one out. Since we know that
> something changed.
Since we don't treat trying to change a setting to a value it already
has as an error it's not guaranteed that there will always be a change
in settings. Therefore, we do always need to send the cmd_complete but
not always the new_settings event. In the new set of patches I sent I've
simplified this logic a bit but the check is still there.
Johan
--
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
