Hi Arman, Michael,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Michael Janssen <jamuraa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Arman, Luiz:
>
> On Wed Nov 19 2014 at 7:05:50 AM Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Arman,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Arman Uguray <armansito@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Added the g_attrib_get_att function which returns the underlying bt_att
>> > structure associated with a GAttrib.
>> > ---
>> > attrib/gattrib.c | 8 ++++++++
>> > attrib/gattrib.h | 3 +++
>> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/attrib/gattrib.c b/attrib/gattrib.c
>> > index ce7f7b3..a446ae6 100644
>> > --- a/attrib/gattrib.c
>> > +++ b/attrib/gattrib.c
>> > @@ -166,6 +166,14 @@ GIOChannel *g_attrib_get_channel(GAttrib *attrib)
>> > return attrib->io;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +struct bt_att *g_attrib_get_att(GAttrib *attrib)
>> > +{
>> > + if (!attrib)
>> > + return NULL;
>> > +
>> > + return attrib->att;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > gboolean g_attrib_set_destroy_function(GAttrib *attrib, GDestroyNotify destroy,
>> > gpointer user_data)
>> > {
>> > diff --git a/attrib/gattrib.h b/attrib/gattrib.h
>> > index 2ed57c1..374bac2 100644
>> > --- a/attrib/gattrib.h
>> > +++ b/attrib/gattrib.h
>> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ extern "C" {
>> > #define GATTRIB_ALL_REQS 0xFE
>> > #define GATTRIB_ALL_HANDLES 0x0000
>> >
>> > +struct bt_att; /* Forward declaration for compatibility */
>> > struct _GAttrib;
>> > typedef struct _GAttrib GAttrib;
>> >
>> > @@ -47,6 +48,8 @@ void g_attrib_unref(GAttrib *attrib);
>> >
>> > GIOChannel *g_attrib_get_channel(GAttrib *attrib);
>> >
>> > +struct bt_att *g_attrib_get_att(GAttrib *attrib);
>> > +
>> > gboolean g_attrib_set_destroy_function(GAttrib *attrib,
>> > GDestroyNotify destroy, gpointer user_data);
>> >
>> > --
>> > 2.1.0.rc2.206.gedb03e5
>>
>> Im not following you here, why you want to expose bt_att via GAttrib,
>> isn't it better to just have a g_attrib_get_fd if you just need to
>> access the fd?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luiz Augusto von Dentz
>
> It's my understanding that the g_attrib_get_att function is needed in
> the transition from GAttrib to bt_att. For now the GAttrib creates
> the bt_att, but eventually device_attach_attrib will create the bt_att
> on it's own once GAttrib is not needed anymore. I don't have an issue
> with the reference semantics as long as it's clear.
I see, we might just return a void pointer here instead, although I
still believe this is a bit too soon to start changing things directly
on the core without proper unit tests.
--
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
