linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: automatically flushable packets aren't allowed on LE links

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8d-a+MJBBLkU_=UQGKVmxnM-sYJ=pW7aj0XQ5aa5AuR2G_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:53:52 -0500
From:	Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@...il.com>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
	BlueZ development <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: automatically flushable packets aren't
 allowed on LE links

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@...il.com> wrote:
>> > I think Marcel was after just providing a clarifying code comment in
>> > both places - having two branches of an if-statement doing exactly the
>> > same thing looks a bit weird to me. To make thins completely clear I'd
>> > suggest adding a simple helper function that you can call from both
>> > places to get the needed flags, something like the following:
>>
>> I am actually fine with just adding a comment explaining the complex if
>> statement on why it is correct. It is just a helper for everybody to
>> understand what and why it is done that way.
>
>
> Is the comment I added sufficient, or should I add one for the other if
> condition as well?  To me, the second condition is pretty straightforward:
> if the caller requested it and the hardware supports it, use NO_FLUSH.  The
> relationship between FLUSH/NO_FLUSH and low-energy is much less clear and
> more justifies a comment, in my opinion.

Did a miss a reply to this?  How would you like the next iteration of
the patch to look?
-- 
-Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@...il.com>
--
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/