Return-Path: Message-ID: <551BE5C2.3040101@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:34:10 +0200 From: Florian Grandel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BlueZ development CC: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: Multi-Advertising: implementation options, timing questions References: <5515ECE9.9080101@gmail.com> <0B4D986A-2913-46C0-8EB2-53EE29C67739@holtmann.org> <55164DEC.6070009@gmail.com> <5516AD7C.3040401@gmail.com> <55188985.80001@gmail.com> <2F40B83E-682C-47A4-A7A3-BF2CDE2DA4D5@holtmann.org> In-Reply-To: <2F40B83E-682C-47A4-A7A3-BF2CDE2DA4D5@holtmann.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed List-ID: Hi Marcel, > See comment above, we can not really change legacy API. Sure. I hoped that my proposal was just a change in implementation, not in behavior. But it doesn't seem to be an obvious improvement. > It has to stay around for backwards compatibility. And that is why set advertising takes precedence over anything added by add advertising. Yes, I understood that from the documentation of the mgmt api. > What are you planning to verify here. The instance id is coming from userspace. Oups. Seems so obvious but I overlooked it. > Read up on what instance[0] actually does in a struct. We have used these constructs before. I am sensing that you misunderstood what this is for. I think I understood what it does (struct hack?). I just didn't understand the intent of that field as it wasn't (yet) used anywhere in code. But I found it out in the meantime: You intend it to hold the currently occupied instance identifiers. I'll make sure it will be filled accordingly. Thanks for your quick response! Florian