Return-Path: <cyrus@holtmann.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:13:27 +0200
From: Andrei Emeltchenko <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com>
To: Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@profusion.mobi>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] Bluetooth: General HCI callback implementation
Message-ID: <20120307091325.GB3647@aemeltch-MOBL1>
References: <1331039789-31519-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com>
 <CAA37ikbqQAb-qrgACxg28aUR3rMQ2=C810X+kLyeOSqYUbUfEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <CAA37ikbqQAb-qrgACxg28aUR3rMQ2=C810X+kLyeOSqYUbUfEw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-bluetooth.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Ulisses,

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:57:59AM -0300, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > index d12e353..2ef515e 100644
> > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > @@ -131,6 +131,17 @@ struct le_scan_params {
> >
> > ?#define HCI_MAX_SHORT_NAME_LENGTH ? ? ?10
> >
> > +struct hci_dev;
> > +
> > +struct cb_cmd {
> 
> Maybe a better name here with a prefix? hci_cb_cmd?

Yes agree, I will change it to hci_cb_cmd.

> 
> > + ? ? ? struct list_head list;
> > + ? ? ? u16 opcode;
> > + ? ? ? u8 status;
> > + ? ? ? void *opt;
> > + ? ? ? void (*cb)(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct cb_cmd *cmd);
> > + ? ? ? void (*destructor)(struct cb_cmd *cmd);
> > +};
> > +
> > ?#define NUM_REASSEMBLY 4
> > ?struct hci_dev {
> > ? ? ? ?struct list_head list;
> > @@ -237,6 +248,7 @@ struct hci_dev {
> > ? ? ? ?__u16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? init_last_cmd;
> >
> > ? ? ? ?struct list_head ? ? ? ?mgmt_pending;
> > + ? ? ? struct list_head ? ? ? ?cb_list;
> >
> > ? ? ? ?struct discovery_state ?discovery;
> > ? ? ? ?struct hci_conn_hash ? ?conn_hash;
> > @@ -1086,4 +1098,10 @@ int hci_cancel_inquiry(struct hci_dev *hdev);
> > ?int hci_le_scan(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u16 interval, u16 window,
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?int timeout);
> >
> > +struct cb_cmd *hci_find_cb(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode);
> > +int hci_cmd_cb(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode, __u32 plen, void *param,
> > + ? ? ? void (*cb)(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct cb_cmd *cmd), void *opt,
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void (*destructor)(struct cb_cmd *cmd));
> 
> This line is very ugly and hard to read. Maybe have a longer line like
> other parts of the kernel seem to be accepting now?

Do you mean line over 80 characters? I think checkpatch do not like that.

> 
> > +void hci_remove_cb(struct cb_cmd *cmd);
> > +
> > ?#endif /* __HCI_CORE_H */
> > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > index 5b1ddab..cdc0220 100644
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > @@ -1826,6 +1826,8 @@ int hci_register_dev(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> >
> > ? ? ? ?INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->mgmt_pending);
> >
> > + ? ? ? INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->cb_list);
> > +
> > ? ? ? ?INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->blacklist);
> >
> > ? ? ? ?INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->uuids);
> > @@ -2239,6 +2241,61 @@ int hci_send_cmd(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode, __u32 plen, void *param)
> > ? ? ? ?return 0;
> > ?}
> >
> > +void hci_add_cb(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode,
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void (*cb)(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct cb_cmd *cmd),
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void *opt, void (*destructor)(struct cb_cmd *cmd))
> > +{
> > + ? ? ? struct cb_cmd *cmd;
> > +
> > + ? ? ? cmd = kmalloc(sizeof(*cmd), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + ? ? ? if (!cmd)
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
> > +
> > + ? ? ? cmd->cb = cb;
> > + ? ? ? cmd->opcode = opcode;
> > + ? ? ? cmd->opt = opt;
> > + ? ? ? cmd->status = 0;
> > +
> > + ? ? ? if (destructor)
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cmd->destructor = destructor;
> > +
> > + ? ? ? list_add(&cmd->list, &hdev->cb_list);
> 
> Don't we need some protection here? We probably can use hdev lock.

This function is used currently locked, maybe I name it as __hci_add_cb.
> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct cb_cmd *hci_find_cb(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode)
> > +{
> > + ? ? ? struct cb_cmd *cmd;
> > +
> > + ? ? ? list_for_each_entry(cmd, &hdev->cb_list, list)
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (cmd->opcode == opcode)
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return cmd;
> 
> Here as well, we might need to protect the critical section.

Here looks like we do not need unlocked version so I will add locks.

> > +
> > + ? ? ? return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void hci_remove_cb(struct cb_cmd *cmd)
> > +{
> > + ? ? ? list_del(&cmd->list);
> > +
> > + ? ? ? if (cmd->destructor) {
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cmd->destructor(cmd);
> > + ? ? ? } else {
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? kfree(cmd->opt);
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? kfree(cmd);
> > + ? ? ? }
> 
> And here too. Right?

Same as last comment.

> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Send HCI command with callback */
> > +int hci_cmd_cb(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode, __u32 plen, void *param,
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void (*cb)(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct cb_cmd *cmd),
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void *opt, void (*destructor)(struct cb_cmd *cmd))
> > +{
> > + ? ? ? if (cb)
> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? hci_add_cb(hdev, opcode, cb, opt, destructor);
> > +
> > + ? ? ? return hci_send_cmd(hdev, opcode, plen, param);
> > +}
> > +
> > ?/* Get data from the previously sent command */
> > ?void *hci_sent_cmd_data(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 opcode)
> > ?{
> 
> We don't have any callers of find and remove functions?

Those will be used in functions handling HCI complete event handlers like:

cmd = hci_find_cb(hdev, HCI_OP_READ_LOCAL_AMP_INFO);
if (cmd) {
	cmd->status = rp->status;
	hci_queue_cb(hdev, cmd, hdev->workqueue);
}

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko