Hi Lukasz,
> >> In my opinion bt_att_local_csrk_is_valid API seems to be unnecessary
> >> as CSRK can be checked inside bt_att_send function directly.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with you that it is also ok to be checked inside bt_att_send
> > function and have thought about this problem before.
> > And I think there are two advantages of checking valid outside
> > bt_att_send function
> >
> > 1. provide API to user to check CSRK status if they want.
>
> Ok, the question is why user would like to do it? Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> > 2. if the CSRK is invalid , we can just return false quickly , there
> > is no need to go on calling down bt_att_send then return false back. It will be
> more efficient I think.
>
> If bt_att_send() will check the CSRK on the beginning then there is no difference.
>
Yes , we can check the CSRK in the beginning of the bt_att_send function. However,
You can see in the bt_att_send function there is clear and general handle command
process , I do not think is a good style here to put a specific signed_write_cmd stuff
in the beginning to check CSRK valid or not.
Thanks
Chaojie Gu
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��� �^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
