[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6670BE33-A403-43AC-B422-C4F363BEBC9C@holtmann.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:02:22 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@...gle.com>
Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...omium.org>,
"open list:BLUETOOTH SUBSYSTEM" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
Alain Michaud <alainm@...omium.org>,
CrosBT Upstreaming <chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming@...omium.org>,
Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@...omium.org>,
Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@...omium.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Bluetooth: Keep MSFT ext info throughout a hci_dev's
life cycle
Hi Manish,
> This moves msft_do_close() from hci_dev_do_close() to
> hci_unregister_dev() to avoid clearing MSFT extension info. This also
> re-reads MSFT info upon every msft_do_open() even if MSFT extension has
> been initialized.
>
> The following test steps were performed.
> (1) boot the test device and verify the MSFT support debug log in syslog
> (2) restart bluetoothd and verify msft_do_close() doesn't get invoked
> and msft_do_open re-reads the MSFT support.
so tell me how this can be correct. The msft_do_close does cleanup of instances. If we close the device via power down I would expect that these instances are cleared. Do they survive a HCI Reset command?
I think it would be better to introduce an additional msft_register / msft_unregister pair if this needs to be more complex.
Regards
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists