On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:33:33AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 11/09/14 10:01, Alexander Aring wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:25:56AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> On 11/09/14 09:18, Alexander Aring wrote: > >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: > >>>> Passing the skb from 6lowpan up to the higher layers is not a > >>>> function of IPHC. By moving it out of IPHC we also remove the > >>>> need to support error code returns with NET_RX codes. > >>>> It also makes the lowpan_rcv function more extendable as we > >>>> can support more compression schemes. > >>>> > >>> I will ack this. But please sperate this patch in two. First renaming > >>> the function namens and then removing deliver callback. > >> ok, but should this not be the other way around > >> moving delivery into receive and then by doing this processs_data > >> naturally becomes IPHC decompress so it can be renamed. > >>> btw. The correct tag is bluetooth not linux-bluetooth, or bluetooth-next. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Also this doesn't fix anything? Then this is for bluetooth-next. I know > >>> this depends on the Patch 1/3. Marcel, do you have any a nice solution > >>> about this, that we can deal with huge fixes in bluetooth and new features > >>> for bluetooth-next. Or simple wait when it's merged? > >> I disagree, this with the previous patch fixes error handling in > >> lowpan_rcv. By moving the skb delivery out of IPHC you automatically fix > >> the nightmare which is returning a mixture of NET_RX codes with error > >> codes. IPHC now only returns error codes or success. Delivery is done > >> where is should be in the receive function and can deal with NET_RX codes. > > ok. When this is a part of the fix and 1/3 "prepare" the fix, then put > > this handling into patch "1/3" to really fix the issue from patch 1/3. > I'm sorry I don't quite understand. Are you saying that I should combine > patches 1 and 2 into a single patch? >
So far I understand this is also part of the fix from patch 1. So it's necessary to have this in one patch, means between patch 1 and 2 it's still broken. Or? and remove the renaming. You can do that as cleanup into bluetooth-next. - Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
