Hi Jakub,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Tyszkowski Jakub
<jakub.tyszkowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +struct pdu {
>>> + uint8_t *data;
>>> + uint16_t size;
>>
>>
>> The size should probably be size_t, or even better use struct iovec
>> directly here since it is about the same.
>
>
> I wouldn't go that far and use iovec's here.
>
> I actually had one patch on top of this set which replaces this struct with
> iovec but in the end the only benefit was one struct definition less as
> bthost API does not take iovecs:
Im working on it already, internally bthost already uses iovec so it
makes sense to expose it if we can benefit from it.
> void bthost_send_cid(struct bthost *bthost, uint16_t handle,
> uint16_t cid, const void *data, uint16_t len)
>
> And this function is also a reason for 'size' being uint16_t.
>
> BTW I think 'pdu.data' looks better than 'pdu.iov_base' and we shouldn't
> make it look more complicated than it is without the real benefit.
Well this is not exactly the point, it might look better but struct
iovec is a standard interface so it only make sense to introduce
another design if the standard does not attend our needs which does
not seems to be the case here.
>>
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define raw_data(args...) ((unsigned char[]) { args })
>>> +
>>> +#define raw_pdu(args...) \
>>> + { \
>>> + .data = raw_data(args), \
>>> + .size = sizeof(raw_data(args)), \
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +#define null_pdu { .data = NULL }
>>> +
>>> #define TEST_CASE_BREDR(text, ...) { \
>>> HCIEMU_TYPE_BREDR, \
>>> text, \
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Regards,
> Jakub
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
--
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
