On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:32:12 -0400
Anderson Lizardo <anderson.lizardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Antonio Ospite
> <ospite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -724,17 +724,7 @@ static void set_trust(GDBusPendingPropertySet id, gboolean value, void *data)
> > {
> > struct btd_device *device = data;
> >
> > - if (device->trusted == value) {
> > - g_dbus_pending_property_success(id);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > - device->trusted = value;
> > -
> > - store_device_info(device);
> > -
> > - g_dbus_emit_property_changed(dbus_conn, device->path,
> > - DEVICE_INTERFACE, "Trusted");
> > + device_set_trusted(device, value);
> >
> > g_dbus_pending_property_success(id);
>
> g_dbus_pending_property_success() is now called always (whether the
> property changed or not). Not sure if this is an issue, but it is a
> change that needs at least a clarification on the commit message.
>
The logic is equivalent to the previous one, as device_set_trusted()
returns without doing anything when (device->trusted == trusted), and
the previous implementation was already calling
g_dbus_pending_property_success() just before returning in any exit
path. Or was it meant to be g_dbus_pending_property_error() in the
first exit path? I don't know about that.
The previous set_trust() code didn't consider the !device case so we
should be OK if this function assumes the device is always defined.
If the code is OK I can improve the commit message, yes.
Thanks,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
--
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
