Hi Pali, On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:07 AM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 27 April 2020 09:37:39 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > > Hi Pali, > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 2:05 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > When DisconnectProfile is called with disconnected UUID, bluetooth daemon > > > often returned error "Operation already in progress". This change fixed it > > > and no error message is returned for this case. > > > --- > > > src/device.c | 5 +++++ > > > src/service.c | 3 ++- > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/device.c b/src/device.c > > > index 149c45160..229579378 100644 > > > --- a/src/device.c > > > +++ b/src/device.c > > > @@ -2054,6 +2054,9 @@ static DBusMessage *disconnect_profile(DBusConnection *conn, DBusMessage *msg, > > > if (dev->disconnect) > > > return btd_error_in_progress(msg); > > > > > > + if (btd_service_get_state(service) == BTD_SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED) > > > + return dbus_message_new_method_return(msg); > > > + > > > dev->disconnect = dbus_message_ref(msg); > > > > > > err = btd_service_disconnect(service); > > > @@ -2065,6 +2068,8 @@ static DBusMessage *disconnect_profile(DBusConnection *conn, DBusMessage *msg, > > > > > > if (err == -ENOTSUP) > > > return btd_error_not_supported(msg); > > > + else if (err == -EALREADY) > > > + return dbus_message_new_method_return(msg); > > > > > > return btd_error_failed(msg, strerror(-err)); > > > } > > > diff --git a/src/service.c b/src/service.c > > > index c14ee0aca..e4d747a6e 100644 > > > --- a/src/service.c > > > +++ b/src/service.c > > > @@ -281,8 +281,9 @@ int btd_service_disconnect(struct btd_service *service) > > > case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_UNAVAILABLE: > > > return -EINVAL; > > > case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTED: > > > - case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTING: > > > return -EALREADY; > > > + case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_DISCONNECTING: > > > + return 0; > > > > Have you checked if there are no side effects of this change? Since > > you have a call to btd_service_get_service I wonder if this is really > > necessary or you want to change the behavior to not return an error > > even in case of disconnecting state? But even in that case you are > > checking if for -EALREADY and returning no error. > > Same logic is used in btd_service_connect() function. When service is in > disconnecting state then it will receive state change to disconnected. > So returning zero is should same as issuing disconnect request again. > > > > case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTING: > > > case BTD_SERVICE_STATE_CONNECTED: > > > break; > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 Applied, thanks. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
