Hi Gustavo,
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:31:04AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This keep l2cap chan ops functions parameters in sync.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> > > index 25a85ab..0f8886b 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h
> > > @@ -532,8 +532,8 @@ struct l2cap_ops {
> > > void (*close) (void *data);
> > > void (*teardown) (void *data, int err);
> > > void (*state_change) (void *data, int state);
> > > - struct sk_buff *(*alloc_skb) (struct l2cap_chan *chan,
> > > - unsigned long len, int nb);
> > > + struct sk_buff *(*alloc_skb) (void *data, unsigned long len,
> > > + int nb);
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -1893,7 +1893,7 @@ static inline int l2cap_skbuff_fromiovec(struct l2cap_chan *chan,
> > >
> > > count = min_t(unsigned int, conn->mtu, len);
> > >
> > > - tmp = chan->ops->alloc_skb(chan, count,
> > > + tmp = chan->ops->alloc_skb(chan->data, count,
> >
> > Why do we need to pass chan->data instead of chan?
>
> We are changing this to make this call have the same parameter as the other
> ops calls, i.e., a void *, so we just pass chan->data here which is the user
> data (struct sock *sk in the l2cap_sock.c case).
so what is the problem to just pass l2cap_chan in here for all calls and
then have the it do chan->data inside the callback. This void *data
thing is dead ugly.
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
