Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121025104219.GB30500@x220> References: <1350661172-18125-1-git-send-email-mikel.astiz.oss@gmail.com> <1350661172-18125-6-git-send-email-mikel.astiz.oss@gmail.com> <20121025104219.GB30500@x220> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:53:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v0 05/15] network: Add network .connect and .disconnect From: Mikel Astiz To: Anderson Lizardo , Mikel Astiz , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, Mikel Astiz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Johan Hedberg wrote: > Hi Lizardo, > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012, Anderson Lizardo wrote: >> Hi Mikel, >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mikel Astiz wrote: >> > +static void connect_profile_cb(struct btd_device *device, int err, >> > + const char *pdev, void *data) >> > +{ >> > + struct connect_req *req = data; >> > + >> > + req->cb(req->profile, req->device, err); >> > + >> > + g_free(req); >> > +} >> > + >> > +static int connect_profile(struct btd_device *dev, struct btd_profile *profile, >> > + uint16_t id, btd_profile_cb cb) >> > +{ >> > + struct connect_req *req; >> > + int err; >> > + >> > + DBG("path %s id %u", device_get_path(dev), id); >> > + >> > + req = g_new0(struct connect_req, 1); >> > + req->device = dev; >> >> Isn't btd_device_ref() required here? > > Looks like you're right and I missed this in my initial review. I went > ahead and pushed an extra patch to fix this. I don't think this patch was needed. Actually, the device pointer in struct connect_req can be completely removed, since the callback already receives such pointer, and the network_peer takes care of the device refcounting. Mea culpa for adding this unnecessary field. Cheers, Mikel