Hi Arik, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 19:36, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Arik, > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > >> - uint8_t (*read_cb)(struct attribute *a, gpointer user_data); > >> - uint8_t (*write_cb)(struct attribute *a, gpointer user_data); > >> + uint8_t (*read_cb)(struct attribute *a, gpointer user_data, > >> + gpointer device); > >> + uint8_t (*write_cb)(struct attribute *a, gpointer user_data, > >> + gpointer device); > > > > Why is device a gpointer and not a struct btd_device *? > > Well att.h is a self contained include file (also used in gatttool for > example). How then could any of these callbacks receive a pointer to btd_device when used in gatttool? And if they're not used in gatttool it seems like some refactoring may be in place here (i.e. there should be be a library-like .h file and then something else for stuff which is bound to bluetoothd-internal constructs (like btd_device). > That means there would have to be at least a forward declaration for > btd_device. If we go down that road, it gets tricky, since we depend > on the include order of att.h and device.h. This can maybe be solved > with ifdef tricks, but I thinking leaving att.h self contained is the > better option here. In general we try to avoid double-include protections in internal .h files. The convention is that .c files just have to include the dependencies. 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
