From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>
The handling of connection failures shall be handled by the request
completion callback as already done by hci_cs_le_create_conn, also make
sure to use hci_conn_failed instead of hci_le_conn_failed as the later
don't actually call hci_conn_del to cleanup.
Fixes: 8e8b92ee60de5 ("Bluetooth: hci_sync: Add hci_le_create_conn_sync")
Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>
---
net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 5 +++--
net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 8 +++++---
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
index 882a7df13005..ac06c9724c7f 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
@@ -943,10 +943,11 @@ static void create_le_conn_complete(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data, int err)
bt_dev_err(hdev, "request failed to create LE connection: err %d", err);
- if (!conn)
+ /* Check if connection is still pending */
+ if (conn != hci_lookup_le_connect(hdev))
goto done;
- hci_le_conn_failed(conn, err);
+ hci_conn_failed(conn, err);
done:
hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
index 0270e597c285..af17dfb20e01 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
@@ -5632,10 +5632,12 @@ static void le_conn_complete_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 status,
status = HCI_ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETERS;
}
- if (status) {
- hci_conn_failed(conn, status);
+ /* All connection failure handling is taken care of by the
+ * hci_conn_failed function which is triggered by the HCI
+ * request completion callbacks used for connecting.
+ */
+ if (status)
goto unlock;
- }
if (conn->dst_type == ADDR_LE_DEV_PUBLIC)
addr_type = BDADDR_LE_PUBLIC;
--
2.35.1
Hi Luiz,
> The handling of connection failures shall be handled by the request
> completion callback as already done by hci_cs_le_create_conn, also make
> sure to use hci_conn_failed instead of hci_le_conn_failed as the later
> don't actually call hci_conn_del to cleanup.
>
> Fixes: 8e8b92ee60de5 ("Bluetooth: hci_sync: Add hci_le_create_conn_sync")
> Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 5 +++--
> net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 8 +++++---
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
you are making a bit mess with yet another v2 of this. I rather have you mark this as [PATCH -stable] or something so that we get this one into that tree and then later the rest into -next.
Regards
Marcel
This is automated email and please do not reply to this email!
Dear submitter,
Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list.
This is a CI test results with your patch series:
PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=643316
---Test result---
Test Summary:
CheckPatch PASS 2.73 seconds
GitLint PASS 1.14 seconds
SubjectPrefix PASS 0.72 seconds
BuildKernel PASS 42.02 seconds
BuildKernel32 PASS 37.35 seconds
Incremental Build with patchesPASS 91.80 seconds
TestRunner: Setup PASS 624.66 seconds
TestRunner: l2cap-tester PASS 20.89 seconds
TestRunner: bnep-tester PASS 7.58 seconds
TestRunner: mgmt-tester PASS 128.15 seconds
TestRunner: rfcomm-tester PASS 11.71 seconds
TestRunner: sco-tester PASS 11.35 seconds
TestRunner: smp-tester PASS 11.41 seconds
TestRunner: userchan-tester PASS 7.90 seconds
---
Regards,
Linux Bluetooth
Hi Marcel,
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 2:18 AM Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> > The handling of connection failures shall be handled by the request
> > completion callback as already done by hci_cs_le_create_conn, also make
> > sure to use hci_conn_failed instead of hci_le_conn_failed as the later
> > don't actually call hci_conn_del to cleanup.
> >
> > Fixes: 8e8b92ee60de5 ("Bluetooth: hci_sync: Add hci_le_create_conn_sync")
> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c | 5 +++--
> > net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 8 +++++---
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> you are making a bit mess with yet another v2 of this. I rather have you mark this as [PATCH -stable] or something so that we get this one into that tree and then later the rest into -next.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel
Just sent one with -stable, is that something we should adapt going
forward? Perhaps we should document this somewhere.
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz