Hi Alex, On 11/09/14 10:53, Alexander Aring wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:33:33AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 11/09/14 10:01, Alexander Aring wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:25:56AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On 11/09/14 09:18, Alexander Aring wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: >>>>>> Passing the skb from 6lowpan up to the higher layers is not a >>>>>> function of IPHC. By moving it out of IPHC we also remove the >>>>>> need to support error code returns with NET_RX codes. >>>>>> It also makes the lowpan_rcv function more extendable as we >>>>>> can support more compression schemes. >>>>>> >>>>> I will ack this. But please sperate this patch in two. First renaming >>>>> the function namens and then removing deliver callback. >>>> ok, but should this not be the other way around >>>> moving delivery into receive and then by doing this processs_data naturally becomes IPHC decompress so it can be renamed. >>>>> btw. The correct tag is bluetooth not linux-bluetooth, or bluetooth-next. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also this doesn't fix anything? Then this is for bluetooth-next. I know >>>>> this depends on the Patch 1/3. Marcel, do you have any a nice solution >>>>> about this, that we can deal with huge fixes in bluetooth and new features >>>>> for bluetooth-next. Or simple wait when it's merged? >>>> I disagree, this with the previous patch fixes error handling in lowpan_rcv. By moving the skb delivery out of IPHC you automatically fix the nightmare which is returning a mixture of NET_RX codes with error codes. IPHC now only returns error codes or success. Delivery is done where is should be in the receive function and can deal with NET_RX codes. >>> ok. When this is a part of the fix and 1/3 "prepare" the fix, then put >>> this handling into patch "1/3" to really fix the issue from patch 1/3. >> I'm sorry I don't quite understand. Are you saying that I should combine patches 1 and 2 into a single patch? >> > So far I understand this is also part of the fix from patch 1. So it's > necessary to have this in one patch, means between patch 1 and 2 it's > still broken. Or? I can merge into 1 patch, makes sense to me. > > and remove the renaming. You can do that as cleanup into bluetooth-next. I would argue that the name must be changed as we are changing what the function does and so the name doesn't match what the function now does. > - Alex > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html So my plan is to merge patches 1 and 2 into a single fix lowpan_rcv, incorporate your suggestions and send to bluetooth. Separate patch 3 into a new patch for linux-wpan-next. I think patch 3 should be to linux-wpan as it is fixing the fact that we don't correctly follow RFC 4944 and support fragmented IPv6 packets that have an uncompressed IPv6 header. What are you're thoughts on this. I would also be grateful for any testing by bluetooth developers as I can't physically test the code changes I have made to the bluetooth 6lowpan code. - Martin. -- 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
