Hi Marcel,
Please let me know what you think with regards to the comments above.
Best,
Gavin
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:56 PM Gavin Li <gavin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this quickly.
>
> > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/af_bluetooth.c b/net/bluetooth/af_bluetooth.c
> > > index ee319779781e6..69374321130e4 100644
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/af_bluetooth.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/af_bluetooth.c
> > > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ int bt_sock_wait_state(struct sock *sk, int state, unsigned long timeo)
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bt_sock_wait_state);
> > >
> > > /* This function expects the sk lock to be held when called */
> > > -int bt_sock_wait_ready(struct sock *sk, unsigned long flags)
> > > +int bt_sock_wait_ready(struct sock *sk, unsigned int flags)
> >
> > can we then also do s/flags/msg_flags/ then.
> I prefer keeping it as flags because all other net code also uses
> flags, msg_flags only appears
> in msg->msg_flags.
>
> > > @@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ int bt_sock_wait_ready(struct sock *sk, unsigned long flags)
> > >
> > > BT_DBG("sk %p", sk);
> > >
> > > - timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, flags & O_NONBLOCK);
> > > + timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
> >
> > Since sock_sndtimeo() is taking a bool. This might be better !!(flags & MSG_DONTWAIT).
> It appears to be well-known in the net code that sock_sndtimeo takes a
> bool, since no other
> uses of it do the "!!" conversion.
>
> Let me know what you think. I can make the changes if needed but I was
> just trying my best
> to match the currently existing convention.
>
> Best,
> Gavin
