Return-Path: Message-ID: <41496B2C.1030103@uni-paderborn.de> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:30:04 +0200 From: Stefan Mischke MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann CC: BlueZ Mailing List , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernd_E=DFmann?= Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] L2CAP: One failing connection hurts others? References: <41470C59.2050909@uni-paderborn.de> <1095186861.5695.193.camel@pegasus> <41474247.8090602@uni-paderborn.de> <1095189878.5695.201.camel@pegasus> <41474870.3020204@uni-paderborn.de> <1095191352.5695.205.camel@pegasus> <41475033.3030209@uni-paderborn.de> <1095196325.5263.3.camel@pegasus> <414780B0.2070908@uni-paderborn.de> <1095234376.5263.10.camel@pegasus> <41484B1B.2000000@uni-paderborn.de> <1095282542.19426.9.camel@pegasus> In-Reply-To: <1095282542.19426.9.camel@pegasus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed List-ID: Hi Marcel! Marcel Holtmann schrieb: >use the linger support of the L2CAP socket and put a "sleep 2" between >the first and the second l2test call. > > > Your suggestions have no effect for me. Still errno 16. I think at the moment it is not possible to connect concurrently via l2cap if one device is down. But as a workaround I can use non-blocking connect (but with a timeout of 60 seconds just to prevent deadlocks) and simply reduce the pageto. My connection attempts are sequential anyway because of the master-slave-limit. But I would suggest to change the behavior of l2cap to allow more concurrent connection attempts even if some devices are down. Regards Stefan