Return-Path: Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:22:47 +0200 From: Johan Hedberg To: Andrei Emeltchenko Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix eir parsing function. Message-ID: <20131129082247.GA6800@x220.p-661hnu-f1> References: <1385712049-24635-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1385712049-24635-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andrei, On Fri, Nov 29, 2013, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > Currently eir_parse always return 0 but it is checked throughout the > code (in android/bluetooth code as well in src/adapteri, etc) for > return value (err < 0) which never happens. Return -1 if there is > nothing to parse. Send as RFC as I do not know how current code supposed > to be working. > --- > src/eir.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/eir.c b/src/eir.c > index 084884e..f7450c9 100644 > --- a/src/eir.c > +++ b/src/eir.c > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ int eir_parse(struct eir_data *eir, const uint8_t *eir_data, uint8_t eir_len) > > /* No EIR data to parse */ > if (eir_data == NULL) > - return 0; > + return -1; > > while (len < eir_len - 1) { > uint8_t field_len = eir_data[0]; I think the only concern here is "when is it safe to call eir_data_free()?". If it would not be safe to call that in case the eir_parse function "fails" then we'd need to be able to clearly distinguish failure though a -1 return value. However, as it now stands it is always safe to call eir_data_free() on a struct that was passed to eir_parse(), so I'd go for simply changing this function to return void instead of int. Johan