Hi Lizardo, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014, Anderson Lizardo wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I pushed your first patch and a slightly different version of the > > second one which is more thorough in its checks. I also sent fixes for > > the kernel side so you don't need to spend more time on that (unless you > > disagree with the fixes I sent). > > Thanks! I looked at the patches and I have no comments. Will do tests > and report problems (if any). > > What about the suggestion to make l2cap-tester check if LE CoC is > enabled on the kernel and skip the the tests that depend on it? Right > now, the tests simply fail which is misleading (at first I thought it > was a regression). > > Another option is to change the test name to mention that they require > enabling LE CoC. This has never bothered me much since the assumption is that mainly developers would be running these tools and therefore know the implications and requirements. I have a feeling that adding this kind of checks might be a bit overkill, especially since this debugfs entry will disappear as soon as we do one more test run at the UPF next week. After that LE CoC support will always be there if you've got a new enough kernel. 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
