Hi Johan,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Mikel,
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013, Mikel Astiz wrote:
>> +static char *str_state[] = {
>> + "SERVICE_STATE_UNAVAILABLE",
>> + "SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED",
>> + "SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTING",
>> + "SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTED",
>> + "SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTING",
>> +};
>
> I'd rather have a separate state2str function with a switch statement
> than this array that relies on matching the order of states in the state
> enum. Also, you seem to have forgotten the const specifier that should
> be used for strings like this (I'm pointing it out since it also applies
> to the return type of the state2str function).
Agreed.
>
>> +struct btd_device *service_get_device(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + return service->device;
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct btd_profile *service_get_profile(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + return service->profile;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_set_user_data(struct btd_service *service, void *user_data)
>> +{
>> + assert(service->state == SERVICE_STATE_UNAVAILABLE);
>> + service->user_data = user_data;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void *service_get_user_data(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + return service->user_data;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int service_get_error(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + return service->err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +service_state_t service_get_state(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + return service->state;
>> +}
>
> Why are these functions not prefixed with btd_?
>
>> +void service_probed(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + assert(service->state == SERVICE_STATE_UNAVAILABLE);
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_connecting(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + assert(service->state == SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED);
>> + service->err = 0;
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTING);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_connecting_complete(struct btd_service *service, int err)
>> +{
>> + if (service->state != SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED &&
>> + service->state != SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTING)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + service->err = err;
>> +
>> + if (err == 0)
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTED);
>> + else
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_disconnecting(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + assert(service->state == SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTING ||
>> + service->state == SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTED);
>> + service->err = 0;
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTING);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_disconnecting_complete(struct btd_service *service, int err)
>> +{
>> + if (service->state != SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTED &&
>> + service->state != SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTING)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + service->err = err;
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void service_unavailable(struct btd_service *service)
>> +{
>> + service->profile = NULL;
>> + service->err = 0;
>> + service_set_state(service, SERVICE_STATE_UNAVAILABLE);
>> +}
>
> Why aren't these function names prefixed with btd_?
I had a look at some other existing headers such as device.h and
didn't understand the criteria to add or not the prefix.
I'll add to it to all functions in the next revision.
Cheers,
Mikel
--
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
