Hi Andrei, On Tuesday 11 of November 2014 10:22:43 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > Hi Szymon, > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:05:41PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote: > > Hi Andrei, > > > > On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since > > > those conditions are checked already. > > > > It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are > > referring to it in subject. > > > > > --- > > > android/gatt.c | 3 +-- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c > > > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644 > > > --- a/android/gatt.c > > > +++ b/android/gatt.c > > > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, > > > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib) > > > return; > > > > > > - if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions)) > > > - return; > > > + gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions); > > > > > > if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions)) > > > return; > > > > So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should > > change it definition to something like: > > > > uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib); > > > > Do we really need a helper which just does reference? gatt_db_attribute is private structure. -- Best regards, Szymon Janc -- 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
