Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 22:43:43 +0200
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali@kernel.org>
To:     Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>,
        Ujjwal Sharma <ryzokuken@igalia.com>,
        Andrew Fuller <mactalla.obair@gmail.com>,
        Aleksandar Kostadinov <akostadi@redhat.com>,
        David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
        "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, usharma@chromium.org
Subject: Re: Bluetooth: Allow to use configure SCO socket codec parameters
Message-ID: <20200604204343.eor47oe3fbzf6rbv@pali>
References: <20200419234937.4zozkqgpt557m3o6@pali>
 <177c5794-1cd7-8f76-b66f-e9473ed37a31@redhat.com>
 <CAB5wbS97WQTduY9sKgiLjAnpsmka+9hGQOBDdbAEHgkcwnze1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABBYNZ+TQ+oSYgL1wGsC0rs9faecd0RtQkFE9fbnV89D1r=LOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200516075340.3z37ejs3fuhctunl@pali>
 <CABBYNZLWsYHeOo3_+hcq4r+gY_0sLBQhftW7My7Y4D1n9o5jxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200518165011.jfarrp5mtqoy3mqz@pali>
 <6da08b42-34d5-9d20-bfc1-161cc8d0f2ea@igalia.com>
 <CABBYNZ+myxfFmobLuzGeYfP_G5tM_ptKgCQCmpQCiUkPZYemuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aff611bb-4b38-7614-ce61-fc3e7c012615@igalia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aff611bb-4b38-7614-ce61-fc3e7c012615@igalia.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wednesday 27 May 2020 21:54:18 Ujjwal Sharma wrote:
> Hi Luiz!
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> On 5/27/20 9:18 PM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > Hi Ujjwal,
> > ...
> > Testing is one thing but for production we would need a qualifyable
> > solution, that said I wouldn't oppose to have the socket option behind
> > a module options (runtime) or Kconfig (build-time) so people willing
> > to run this code can do on their own.
> 
> 1. What do you think is lacking in this solution that would make it
> qualifyable for production? I believe there are multiple people in this
> thread including Pali who are willing to put in the extra effort.
> 
> 2. I'd be happy with a runtime option which would allow me to test this
> as well.

Have I missed something? setsockopt() solution which I described in
<20200419234937.4zozkqgpt557m3o6@pali> email is already runtime option.