linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] Bluetooth: btwilink driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=NH8gbW8iCKOQN0bmbL=nqewsZkUik+VkvWUgi@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:13:26 +0530
From:	Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@...y.com>
To:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <padovan@...fusion.mobi>, marcel@...tmann.org,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Bluetooth: btwilink driver

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
>>> +     /* Registration with ST layer is successful,
>>> +      * hardware is ready to accept commands from HCI core.
>>> +      */
>>> +     if (test_and_set_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags)) {
>>> +             clear_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags);
>>> +             err = st_unregister(ST_BT);
>>> +             if (err)
>>> +                     BT_ERR("st_unregister() failed with error %d", err);
>>> +             hst->st_write = NULL;
>>> +     }
>>
>>
>> What are you trying to do here? test_and_set_bit() result doesn't say
>> nothing about error and you shall put test_and_set_bit should be in the
>> beginning, to know if your device is already opened or not and then
>> clear_bit if some error ocurrs during the function.
>>
>
> Yeap, this piece of code beats me is well. Why is it an error if this
> bit wasn't already set?

Vitaly, Gustavo,

I suppose I never understood HCI_RUNNING flag that way, as in an error
check mechanism to avoid multiple hci0 ups.

What I understood was that HCI_RUNNING suggested as to when hci0 was
ready to be used. With this understanding, I wanted to make sure I
downloaded the firmware for the chip before I proclaim to the world
that the hci0 is ready to be used, as in HCI_RUNNING.

For example, I didn't want my _send_frame to be called before I did
the firmware download - since firmware download takes time - 45kb
send/wait commands :(

But I suppose I now understand - What I would rather do is test_bit in
the beginning of function and do a set_bit at the end of function -
does this make sense ?

> ~Vitaly
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/