Hi Marcel,
Could you take another look at my latest patch based on your feedback? Thanks.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:57 PM Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
> Please take a look at the modified patch based on your feedback. Thanks.
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:42 PM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sonny,
> >
> > > Could you take another look at my last proposal based on your
> > > suggestion? If we are to move the logic inside hci_cc_inquiry_cancel,
> > > we will need a way to update the status to the caller, for example by
> > > having hci_cc_inquiry_cancel return a value, or accept a pointer for
> > > the updated status value. Let me know which way you prefer.
> >
> > maybe something like this (missing comment of course):
> >
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> > @@ -42,14 +42,20 @@
> >
> > /* Handle HCI Event packets */
> >
> > -static void hci_cc_inquiry_cancel(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +static void hci_cc_inquiry_cancel(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > + u8 *new_status)
> > {
> > __u8 status = *((__u8 *) skb->data);
> >
> > BT_DBG("%s status 0x%2.2x", hdev->name, status);
> >
> > - if (status)
> > + if (status) {
> > + if (!test_bit(HCI_INQUIRY, &hdev->flags) && status == 0x0c) {
> > + BT_DBG("Ignoring error of HCI Inquiry Cancel command");
> > + *new_status = 0x00;
> > + }
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > clear_bit(HCI_INQUIRY, &hdev->flags);
> > smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* wake_up_bit advises about this barrier */
> > @@ -3233,7 +3239,7 @@ static void hci_cmd_complete_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >
> > switch (*opcode) {
> > case HCI_OP_INQUIRY_CANCEL:
> > - hci_cc_inquiry_cancel(hdev, skb);
> > + hci_cc_inquiry_cancel(hdev, skb, status);
> > break;
> >
> > case HCI_OP_PERIODIC_INQ:
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Marcel
> >
