On Monday 24 of September 2012 12:06:26 Johan Hedberg wrote: > Hi Szymon, Hi Johan, > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012, Szymon Janc wrote: > > --- a/src/mgmt.c > > +++ b/src/mgmt.c > > @@ -1193,6 +1193,7 @@ static void pair_device_complete(int sk, uint16_t index, uint8_t status, > > info = &controllers[index]; > > > > bonding_complete(info, &rp->addr.bdaddr, status); > > + oob_pairing_complete(&info->bdaddr, &rp->addr.bdaddr, status); > > } > > Can't we be a bit smarter than always notifying the oob code. Don't we > e.g. have the possibility to look at the IO capabilities used in the > pairing process or some other means from which we can conclude that this > was an OOB-based pairing that completed? Hash and randomizer are optional tags (only address is mandatory) so there might be only OOB discovery and in-band pairing (OOB data present flag not set in iocapa). I could try to make OOB callbacks registering mechanism a bit more runtime aware (register/unregister on-demand basis) or bit-more compile time aware (hide after a macro and enable only if one of oob plugin is build). Not sure if this would not over-complicate that code to much... opinions? > > Johan -- BR Szymon Janc -- 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
