From owner-freebsd-bluetooth@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 8 01:03:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFA116A420 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:03:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net) Received: from ismybrain.com (ismybrain.com [64.246.42.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70D443D49 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:03:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net) Received: from [10.254.186.111] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ismybrain.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2812xM01557; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:02:59 -0500 Message-ID: <440E2D3F.6040800@savvis.net> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:02:55 -0800 From: Maksim Yevmenkin User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iain Hibbert References: <1141762244.118700.5588.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> <440DEE78.5020500@savvis.net> <1141767948.252179.12317.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> <440E0233.7080703@savvis.net> <1141775918.215241.15084.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> In-Reply-To: <1141775918.215241.15084.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: whitespace X-BeenThere: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Using Bluetooth in FreeBSD environments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:03:08 -0000 Iain Hibbert wrote: > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > >>then add appropriate #define's for shortcut access to the union fields. i can >>then change freebsd code to use single 'struct sockaddr_bt' as well. > > Hm, this could work though there are a couple of differences still, in > that I have used the bdaddr for HCI socket addressing where you use the > text name of the node (I convert name->bdaddr via an ioctl() if necessary) another union inside _hci part? > Also, it is possible in my implementation to specify an alternate PSM for > rfcomm sockets (as I read the spec, this is allowed..) sure its allowed, but why would you want to do this? there is no way for the remote device to know that the local device runs rfcomm on some other (than 3) psm. in the same way you could run sdp on any psm. it will work, as long as you control both sides - server and client. changing "well known" psm is a sure way to get into all sorts of interoperability problems. thanks, max