Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linus971@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <024FA95B-C70F-42ED-BDBF-69D09AA58203@holtmann.org> References: <300602D8-9DB7-4F8D-AC97-B60924554093@holtmann.org> <38429B86-0E46-4C6A-9954-3260D864B10C@holtmann.org> <024FA95B-C70F-42ED-BDBF-69D09AA58203@holtmann.org> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:03:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [V4.1] Regression: Bluetooth mouse not working. From: Linus Torvalds To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Otte?= , "Gustavo F. Padovan" , Johan Hedberg , "bluez mailin list (linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-ID: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > accepting all flags regardless was an oversight on my part in the first place. What this patch tried to do is to limit it to what userspace is currently actually using. My mistake was to look only at BlueZ 5.x userspace and not at BlueZ 4.x userspace. So what about anybody else? Android doesn't use BlueZ, afaik. Any other direct accesses? If we already know that BlueZ 4.x did something else, what makes you so sure that this now covers all cases? The thing is, the bluetooth code has clearly never cared about these bits before. Is there any real reason to think that people haven't passed in garbage? Do we even know that those flags were *initialized* at all by user space in all use cases? So I'm ok with trying to fix things up, but I have to say that if the fixed-up case also causes problems (because there was some other case that you didn't think of), I'm going to be pissed off, and I'm going to expect you to *jump* on it, and revert the whole thing. Ok? Linus