Hi Vinicius,
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Vinicius Costa Gomes
<vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The hci_connect() function was starting to get too complicated to be
> quickly understood. We can separated the creation of a new ACL
small typo: separated -> separate
> connection into its own function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> index 0a74399..1d70e9f 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> @@ -497,18 +497,10 @@ static struct hci_conn *hci_connect_le(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *dst,
> return le;
> }
>
> -/* Create SCO, ACL or LE connection.
> - * Device _must_ be locked */
> -struct hci_conn *hci_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type, bdaddr_t *dst,
> - __u8 dst_type, __u8 sec_level, __u8 auth_type)
> +static struct hci_conn *hci_connect_acl(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *dst,
> + u8 sec_level, u8 auth_type)
> {
> struct hci_conn *acl;
> - struct hci_conn *sco;
> -
> - BT_DBG("%s dst %s", hdev->name, batostr(dst));
> -
> - if (type == LE_LINK)
> - return hci_connect_le(hdev, dst, dst_type, sec_level, auth_type);
>
> acl = hci_conn_hash_lookup_ba(hdev, ACL_LINK, dst);
> if (!acl) {
> @@ -526,6 +518,26 @@ struct hci_conn *hci_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type, bdaddr_t *dst,
> hci_acl_create_connection(acl);
> }
>
> + return acl;
> +}
> +
> +/* Create SCO, ACL or LE connection.
> + * Device _must_ be locked */
> +struct hci_conn *hci_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type, bdaddr_t *dst,
> + __u8 dst_type, __u8 sec_level, __u8 auth_type)
> +{
> + struct hci_conn *acl;
> + struct hci_conn *sco;
> +
> + BT_DBG("%s dst %s", hdev->name, batostr(dst));
> +
> + if (type == LE_LINK)
> + return hci_connect_le(hdev, dst, dst_type, sec_level, auth_type);
> +
> + acl = hci_connect_acl(hdev, dst, sec_level, auth_type);
> + if (IS_ERR(acl))
> + return acl;
> +
> if (type == ACL_LINK)
> return acl;
Does it make sense to merge the two if()'s above into one? i.e.:
if (IS_ERR(acl) || type == ACL_LINK)
return acl;
It's still clear, IMHO.
Best Regards,
--
Anderson Lizardo
Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia - INdT
Manaus - Brazil
--
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
