Hi,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013, Johan Hedberg wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013, Jakub Tyszkowski wrote:
> > For BT_STATUS_SUCCESS no checks were done as it is 0 in bt_status_t
> > enum. Valid status for no status expected should be STATUS_NOT_EXPECTED.
> >
> > ---
> > android/android-tester.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/android/android-tester.c b/android/android-tester.c
> > index c24f5a6..5549dcb 100644
> > --- a/android/android-tester.c
> > +++ b/android/android-tester.c
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ enum hal_bluetooth_callbacks_id {
> > };
> >
> > struct generic_data {
> > - uint8_t expected_adapter_status;
> > + int expected_adapter_status;
> > uint32_t expect_settings_set;
> > bt_property_t expected_property;
> > uint8_t expected_hal_callbacks[];
> > @@ -92,6 +92,8 @@ struct socket_data {
> > #define WAIT_FOR_SIGNAL_TIME 2 /* in seconds */
> > #define EMULATOR_SIGNAL "emulator_started"
> >
> > +#define BT_STATUS_NOT_EXPECTED -1
> > +
> > struct test_data {
> > struct mgmt *mgmt;
> > uint16_t mgmt_index;
> > @@ -199,7 +201,7 @@ static void expected_status_init(struct test_data *data)
> > {
> > const struct generic_data *test_data = data->test_data;
> >
> > - if (!(test_data->expected_adapter_status))
> > + if (test_data->expected_adapter_status == BT_STATUS_NOT_EXPECTED)
> > data->status_checked = true;
> > }
>
> I suppose it does make sense to have such a special value, but I can't
> see you use it anywhere in your patch set. So I'd postpone this patch
> until you've got some actual code that needs it.
Nevermind. I now see that even though you don't add any tests that would
use this new value the change of the if-statement that this patch
introduces is already enough of a justification.
All patches in the set have now been applied.
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
