Re: [PATCH 1/2] Bluetooth: Add hci_cancel_le_scan() to hci_core

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Marcel,

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
>> > * Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-03-06 19:54:33 -0300]:
>> >
>> >> This patch adds to hci_core the hci_cancel_le_scan function which
>> >> should be used to cancel an ongoing LE scan.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >>  include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h |    1 +
>> >>  net/bluetooth/hci_core.c         |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>> >> index 25cb0a1..0db2934 100644
>> >> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>> >> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>> >> @@ -1072,5 +1072,6 @@ int hci_do_inquiry(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 length);
>> >>  int hci_cancel_inquiry(struct hci_dev *hdev);
>> >>  int hci_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u16 interval, u16 window,
>> >>                                                               int timeout);
>> >> +int hci_cancel_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev);
>> >>
>> >>  #endif /* __HCI_CORE_H */
>> >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
>> >> index 661d65f..0c2ceaa 100644
>> >> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
>> >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
>> >> @@ -1672,6 +1672,27 @@ static int hci_do_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u16 interval,
>> >>       return 0;
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> +int hci_cancel_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     bool canceled;
>> >> +
>> >> +     BT_DBG("%s", hdev->name);
>> >> +
>> >> +     if (!test_bit(HCI_LE_SCAN, &hdev->dev_flags))
>> >> +             return -EPERM;
>> >
>> > Are you sure about this -EPERM return error here? At a glance -EALREADY looks
>> > better to me.
>>
>> This function cancels an operation (LE scan). If the operation is not
>> running, it makes more sense to me returning "Operation not permitted"
>> instead of "Operation already in progress".
>
> actually EPERM is for operation not permitted because you do not have
> rights to access is. Not because it is invalid operation.
>
> You need to find a better error code.

Ok, then, as Gustavo suggested, EALREADY looks really better.
Are you fine with EALREADY?

Andre
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Bluez Devel]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media Drivers]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux