Return-Path: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:45 +0200 From: Andrei Emeltchenko To: Mat Martineau Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, padovan@profusion.mobi, pkrystad@codeaurora.org, marcel@holtmann.org, luiz.dentz@gmail.com, ulisses@profusion.mobi Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] Bluetooth: Header changes for ERTM state machine replacement Message-ID: <20120224094842.GA4013@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <1330029469-8565-1-git-send-email-mathewm@codeaurora.org> <1330029469-8565-2-git-send-email-mathewm@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1330029469-8565-2-git-send-email-mathewm@codeaurora.org> List-ID: Hi Mat, It is better to have normal patches for a better review. I think that we can minimize amount of changes by redefining defines when they cannot be used. I also think think that patches shall be logically split like: - change control field handling - working with FCS, etc which do not affect state machine - adding states Also check some comments below: (I copied some code from the link you sent) On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:37:48PM -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > This change affects data structures storing ERTM state and control > fields, and adds new definitions for states and events. An > l2cap_seq_list structure is added for tracking ERTM sequence numbers > without repeated memory allocations. Control fields are carried in > the bt_skb_cb struct rather than constantly doing shift and mask > operations. > > Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau > --- > include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h | 14 ++- > include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h | 260 +++++++++---------------------------- > 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-) ... > -static inline int l2cap_tx_window_full(struct l2cap_chan *ch) > -{ > - int sub; > - > - sub = (ch->next_tx_seq - ch->expected_ack_seq) % 64; > - > - if (sub < 0) > - sub += 64; > - > - return sub == ch->remote_tx_win; > -} BTW: was it already changed? What is the status with Luiz's patch? ... > -static inline __u32 __get_control(struct l2cap_chan *chan, void *p) > -{ > - if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) > - return get_unaligned_le32(p); > - else > - return get_unaligned_le16(p); > -} Cannot it still be used? + if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) { + __get_extended_control(get_unaligned_le32(skb->data), + control); + skb_pull(skb, L2CAP_EXT_CTRL_SIZE); + } else { + __get_enhanced_control(get_unaligned_le16(skb->data), + control); + skb_pull(skb, L2CAP_ENH_CTRL_SIZE); + } - control = __get_control(chan, skb->data); - skb_pull(skb, __ctrl_size(chan)); ... > -static inline void __put_control(struct l2cap_chan *chan, __u32 control, > - void *p) > -{ > - if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) > - return put_unaligned_le32(control, p); > - else > - return put_unaligned_le16(control, p); > -} Can it be used in the code below: + if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) { + put_unaligned_le32(__pack_extended_control(control), + skb->data + L2CAP_HDR_SIZE); + } else { + put_unaligned_le16(__pack_enhanced_control(control), + skb->data + L2CAP_HDR_SIZE); + } and for example here: - __put_control(chan, control, skb_put(skb, __ctrl_size(chan))); + /* Control header is populated later */ + if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) + put_unaligned_le32(0, skb_put(skb, 4)); + else + put_unaligned_le16(0, skb_put(skb, 2)); > - > -static inline __u8 __ctrl_size(struct l2cap_chan *chan) > -{ > - if (test_bit(FLAG_EXT_CTRL, &chan->flags)) > - return L2CAP_EXT_HDR_SIZE - L2CAP_HDR_SIZE; > - else > - return L2CAP_ENH_HDR_SIZE - L2CAP_HDR_SIZE; > -} Regards, Andrei