Mark - I will split this off soon. In the meantime - here is some more info about how we use it. We do use NFC structures. I did find an interesting clue in that there are certain bottles that cause neard to segfault, I'm not sure what is different about them. We write a string, like "coppola_chardonnay_2015" to the bottles. Come to think of it, I haven't done anything special to make that an ndef record, just assumed that it would happen by default, I'll look into this further. Also, I've been running neard with --plugin nfctype2. Just in case the problem was happening due to cycling through other tag types. It didn't seem to make any difference, but I have not gone back to default. Geoff Geoff Lansberry Engineering Guy Kuvée, Inc 125 Kingston St., 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 1-617-290-1118 (m) geoff.lansberry (skype) http://www.kuvee.com On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Mark Greer <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 11:17:18AM -0500, Geoff Lansberry wrote: >> Mark - I'm sorry, but I did not write this code, and therefore was not >> able to accurately describe it. It is fixing a different issue, not >> the neard segfault that we are still chasing. Last week Jaret Cantu >> sent a separate email explaining the purpose of the code, which had >> you copied, did you see that? > > Hm, no, I didn't. I received an email from Justin Bronder but not from > Jaret Cantu. Justin's email did help but is still pretty high-level. > We need a clear understanding as to what is happening in the digital > layer and the driver to know how execution is getting into a block of > error handling code that should never be executed. Once we understand > that we can start thinking about what the best fix is. > >> Does it explain why it was done to >> your satisfaction? I've asked him to join in on the effort to push >> the change upstream, however he will not be available until the new >> year. > > I expect that it would help if he joins. After the holidays is fine - > I think many people are taking it easy for the next week or so, anyway. > >> I know you did suggest that we split off that change from the others, >> and if now is the time to do that, let me know. If you don't have >> the email from Jaret, also please let me know and I will forward it to >> you. > > I think it would help you if you split it off because the first two patches > have a good chance of being accepted but this one doesn't (yet). If you > separate the them, it will make it easier for Samuel to take the first two > (or he may take the first two anyway but its always good to make it as > easy maintainers as you can). > > Mark > --
