Hi Johan,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013, Johan Hedberg wrote:
>> > @@ -2533,6 +2543,7 @@ int hci_req_add(struct hci_request *req, u16 opcode, u32 plen, void *param)
>> > skb = hci_prepare_cmd(hdev, opcode, plen, param);
>> > if (!skb) {
>> > BT_ERR("%s no memory for command", hdev->name);
>> > + req->error = true;
>> > return -ENOMEM;
>> > }
>>
>> If the error is already set then I don't think hci_req_add should even
>> be attempting to add another command to the queue. So you should be
>> checking for a set error early in the function and just return if it's
>> set.
>
> Nevermind. I saw that you have this in the last patch of this set. You
> could probably merge that into this patch though.
Since at this point hci_req_add is not returning void yet, if I merge
the last patch I will have to return a value in case req->err is set.
However, The next patch makes hci_req_add returning void so that value
will be removed anyway.
Regards,
Andre
--
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
