Hi Arman,
On 27 October 2014 15:41, Arman Uguray <armansito@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Marcin,
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Marcin Kraglak
> <marcin.kraglak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Andrei,
>>
>> On 27 October 2014 15:01, Andrei Emeltchenko
>> <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> src/shared/gatt-helpers.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c b/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> index d751d5a..4f53de3 100644
>>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> @@ -1029,7 +1029,7 @@ static void discover_included_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
>>> data = new_read_included(cur_result);
>>> if (!data) {
>>> success = false;
>>> - goto done;
>>> + goto failed;
>>> }
>>>
>>> read_included(data);
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>> In fact exit here is wrong and should be goto failed.
>> Anyway, I found that we call goto failed more times in this function
>> than goto done, so maybe it is better to change labels like this:
>> failed:
>> success = false;
>>
>> done:
>> if (op->callback)
>> op->callback(success, att_ecode, final_result, op->user_data);
>>
>> and set success = true before goto done;
>>
>
> Might actually be better leave the current structure as it is, except
> initialize success = false at declaration. Then code would simply call
> goto fail and not set success to false every time.
Sounds good
>
> -Arman
BR
Marcin
--
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
