Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:02:55 -0800 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@savvis.net> To: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: whitespace Message-ID: <440E2D3F.6040800@savvis.net> In-Reply-To: <1141775918.215241.15084.nullmailer@galant.ukfsn.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?440E2D3F.6040800>