Hi Johan, On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jakub, > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015, Jakub Pawlowski wrote: > > @@ -3564,9 +3564,10 @@ static int pair_device(struct sock *sk, struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data, > > */ > > hci_conn_params_add(hdev, &cp->addr.bdaddr, addr_type); > > > > - conn = hci_connect_le(hdev, &cp->addr.bdaddr, addr_type, > > - sec_level, HCI_LE_CONN_TIMEOUT, > > - HCI_ROLE_MASTER); > > + conn = hci_add_to_sock_conn_whitelist(hdev, &cp->addr.bdaddr, > > + addr_type, sec_level, > > + HCI_LE_CONN_TIMEOUT, > > + HCI_ROLE_MASTER); > > The purpose we're introducing this passive scanning functionality is so > that we have a fresh RPA for the remote device. The way we know that a > new RPA matches the remote device is by checking against an IRK. If the > user is calling pair_device it means we don't have an IRK, so in this > case it seems pointless to me to start passive scanning (not to mention > that typically paired device is called straight after stopping an active > scan). So right now we start scan no matter what kind of address was provided, it can even be static address, that's how Marcel wanted it to be in one of his comments ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/62704 ) : " In addition, I do not think it makes a difference if you are an RPA or not. Just run through our background scanning for all connection attempts. This has the advantage that now simultaneous connection attempts via L2CAP connect() would not have to wait for each other." Probably keeping last time when device was seen and choosing what to do might be good option, but maybe for future improvements, not base patch ? > > Johan -- 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
