Hi Marcel, On Mon, Mar 04, 2013, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > +typedef void (*hci_req_complete_t)(struct hci_dev *hdev, u16 last_cmd, > > + u8 status); > > I am now asking myself why would we use something like last_cmd here. > I assume this is actually last_opcode and it is not really reliable. > If two same opcodes are sent, then this is kinda useless. I can't really think of any use case for having two same commands in a request since typically the second one would overwrite the effect of the first one. The code does (or at least should) support it though but admittedly you're right that the complete callback API wouldn't right now allow determining exactly which of the multiple commands with the same opcode failed (but again, this is a quite wild theoretical situation). > Do we really need this? Or we might better copy in the failing skb? The idea was that neither an opcode nor a status are alone enough for the callback to know at what point the request failed. We could just have the status, but then it's a bit strange for the callback to get a failure status but not know which command failed. We could add the failed skb (copied from hdev->sent_cmd) but then that's not so friendly for the clients as they'd typically just want to dig out the opcode for logging purposes. Johan -- 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
