Hi,
> Hi Andrei,
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > Currently eir_parse always return 0 but it is checked throughout the
> > code (in android/bluetooth code as well in src/adapteri, etc) for
> > return value (err < 0) which never happens. Return -1 if there is
> > nothing to parse. Send as RFC as I do not know how current code supposed
> > to be working.
> > ---
> > src/eir.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/eir.c b/src/eir.c
> > index 084884e..f7450c9 100644
> > --- a/src/eir.c
> > +++ b/src/eir.c
> > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ int eir_parse(struct eir_data *eir, const uint8_t *eir_data, uint8_t eir_len)
> >
> > /* No EIR data to parse */
> > if (eir_data == NULL)
> > - return 0;
> > + return -1;
> >
> > while (len < eir_len - 1) {
> > uint8_t field_len = eir_data[0];
>
> I think the only concern here is "when is it safe to call
> eir_data_free()?". If it would not be safe to call that in case the
> eir_parse function "fails" then we'd need to be able to clearly
> distinguish failure though a -1 return value. However, as it now stands
> it is always safe to call eir_data_free() on a struct that was passed to
> eir_parse(), so I'd go for simply changing this function to return void
> instead of int.
I think it should be possible to check if parsing failed due to invalid EIR
but I think parsing empty EIR should not result in error.
Most callers do verify eir_len or buffer validity before calling eir_parse()
anyway so I would change this check to:
if (!eir_data || !eir_len) return 0;
and simplify callers code.
--
BR
Szymon Janc
--
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
