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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <50D951D4-0A99-4D77-814C-D80A209B3D4F@holtmann.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:16:47 +0900
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@...il.com>
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

Hi Steven,

>>>> 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?

can you just send a v4 and I have a look at it. I thing it is best to keep the original patch with the rather complicated if statement you had. And then add a comment in front of it, why it is that way and that it is correct this way.

Regards

Marcel

--
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/