Hi Andre,
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi Andre,
> >>
> >>> This patch adds the address type info to struct sockaddr_l2 so
> >>> user-space can inform the remote device address type required
> >>> to establish LE connections.
> >>>
> >>> Soon, instead of looking the advertising cache up to discover the
> >>> address type, we'll use this address type info to establish LE
> >>> connections.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h | 1 +
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> >>> index f6f0500..d14967e 100644
> >>> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> >>> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> >>> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ struct sockaddr_l2 {
> >>> __le16 l2_psm;
> >>> bdaddr_t l2_bdaddr;
> >>> __le16 l2_cid;
> >>> + __u8 l2_bdaddr_type;
> >>> };
> >>
> >> so I am trying to come up with a better name for this value. It feels a
> >> little bit too long to me.
> >>
> >> I was considering l2_bdtype, but that is not really semantically correct
> >> here. Or would it be fine? We could do l2_bdatype, but that does not
> >> really make it any better either.
> >
> > Yes, it is a little big to me too. But that was the best name I could
> > find. Other names just don't clearly say what this field means.
>
> So, do we keep this name?
I honestly have not made up mind. Send a new patch anyway.
Regards
Marcel
--
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
