Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:01:50 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> To: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libhci update Message-ID: <1240311710.547959.2200.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> In-Reply-To: <1240311202.361300.1366.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> References: <E1Lv5La-00058x-HH@smtpbarns01> <bb4a86c70904201053y1a04d76el336432d3e1a23576@mail.gmail.com> <1240311202.361300.1366.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Iain Hibbert wrote: > > > Bt_devreq() needs to set/restore a filter too > > > > well, maybe. bt_devreq() operates on already opened socket. the > > assumption i'm making here is that application will set appropriate > > filter before calling bt_devreq(). otherwise, application would have > > to always set 'event' field to acceptable value (or zero). i could go > > either way here. just need to document implemented behavior better. > > Mm, its a good point - there are arguments either way (bloat vs guaranteed > success) but I think since the difference between devreq() and devrecv() > is that devreq() handles all the fiddly details for you, I think its worth > doing that aswell.. the bluez hci_send_req() does set the filters btw iain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1240311710.547959.2200.nullmailer>