Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Bluetooth: Introduce HCI_CONN_FLAG_DEVICE_PRIVACY device flag

Hi Marcel,

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:12 PM Marcel Holtmann [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Luiz,

quoted

quoted

quoted

This introduces HCI_CONN_FLAG_DEVICE_PRIVACY which can be used by
userspace to indicate to the controller to use Device Privacy Mode to a
specific device.

Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <redacted>
---
include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h |  1 +
net/bluetooth/mgmt.c             | 12 ++++++++++++
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
index fc93a1907c90..9c94d1c49b25 100644
--- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
+++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h

@@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ struct bdaddr_list_with_irk {

enum hci_conn_flags {
     HCI_CONN_FLAG_REMOTE_WAKEUP,
+     HCI_CONN_FLAG_DEVICE_PRIVACY,

coming this now, I wonder if we better call them FLAG_REMOTE_WAKEUP_SUPPORT and FLAG_DEVICE_PRIVACY_SUPPORT. If I am not mistaken, then these are for indicating support for it.

These flags are used in multiple places:

hci_dev->conn_flags
hci_conn_params->conn_flags
bdaddr_list_with_flags->flags

Which is one of the reason I made them all use  DECLARE_BITMAP(flags,
__HCI_CONN_NUM_FLAGS) so they are in sync, the use of them in
hci_dev->conn_flags means they are supported but in the other 2 it
means they are in use, so I prefer leave as they are.

is my comment wrong? Don’t they always indicate the support for it?

Support vs Use, anyway I always think about the shortest form for
defines and having some term like SUPPORT sounds a little superfluous
for me, but I'm fine adding it if you really think that is necessary
in this case.

Regards

Marcel

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz