On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:32:29AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
> On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 12:27:24 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > Hi Szymon,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:16:27AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > > ---
> > > android/hal-bluetooth.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/android/hal-bluetooth.c b/android/hal-bluetooth.c
> > > index 5f6dcbe..067f420 100644
> > > --- a/android/hal-bluetooth.c
> > > +++ b/android/hal-bluetooth.c
> > > @@ -68,6 +68,17 @@ static void handle_adapter_props_changed(void *buf, uint16_t len)
> > > bt_hal_cbacks->adapter_properties_cb(ev->status, ev->num_props, props);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void handle_bond_state_change(void *buf)
> > > +{
> > > + struct hal_ev_bond_state_changed *ev = buf;
> > > + bt_bdaddr_t *addr = (bt_bdaddr_t *) ev->bdaddr;
> > > +
> > > + if (!bt_hal_cbacks->bond_state_changed_cb)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + bt_hal_cbacks->bond_state_changed_cb(ev->status, addr, ev->state);
> >
> > We shall use the same style like for other callbacks.
>
> In that case reverting check allow to not break function call into 2 lines.
> I find it more readable (and there will be reverted check for less trivial
> callbacks e.g. with properties)
Those checks at least need to be consistent. Your next patch use other
way. We shall agree about best way for this check, maybe some #define like
I have in my patches sent some time ago? We could also add debug traces
then.
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
--
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
