Return-Path: Message-ID: <1331229212.14217.11.camel@aeonflux> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Bluetooth: Add hci_cancel_le_scan() to hci_core From: Marcel Holtmann To: Andre Guedes Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:53:32 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1331074474-12868-1-git-send-email-andre.guedes@openbossa.org> <1331074474-12868-2-git-send-email-andre.guedes@openbossa.org> <20120306230730.GA8386@joana> <1331148191.3392.185.camel@aeonflux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andre, > >> > * Andre Guedes [2012-03-06 19:54:33 -0300]: > >> > > >> >> This patch adds to hci_core the hci_cancel_le_scan function which > >> >> should be used to cancel an ongoing LE scan. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Guedes > >> >> --- > >> >> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 1 + > >> >> net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >> >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> >> index 25cb0a1..0db2934 100644 > >> >> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> >> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> >> @@ -1072,5 +1072,6 @@ int hci_do_inquiry(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 length); > >> >> int hci_cancel_inquiry(struct hci_dev *hdev); > >> >> int hci_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u16 interval, u16 window, > >> >> int timeout); > >> >> +int hci_cancel_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev); > >> >> > >> >> #endif /* __HCI_CORE_H */ > >> >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> >> index 661d65f..0c2ceaa 100644 > >> >> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> >> @@ -1672,6 +1672,27 @@ static int hci_do_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u16 interval, > >> >> return 0; > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> +int hci_cancel_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev) > >> >> +{ > >> >> + bool canceled; > >> >> + > >> >> + BT_DBG("%s", hdev->name); > >> >> + > >> >> + if (!test_bit(HCI_LE_SCAN, &hdev->dev_flags)) > >> >> + return -EPERM; > >> > > >> > Are you sure about this -EPERM return error here? At a glance -EALREADY looks > >> > better to me. > >> > >> This function cancels an operation (LE scan). If the operation is not > >> running, it makes more sense to me returning "Operation not permitted" > >> instead of "Operation already in progress". > > > > actually EPERM is for operation not permitted because you do not have > > rights to access is. Not because it is invalid operation. > > > > You need to find a better error code. > > Ok, then, as Gustavo suggested, EALREADY looks really better. > Are you fine with EALREADY? seems fine to me. Regards Marcel