On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 15:51 +0300, Patrik Flykt wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 14:02 +0200, Richard Röjfors wrote:
> > > case CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_UNKNOWN:
> > > case CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_IDLE:
> > > - if (service->state == CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_FAILURE)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > - break;
> > > case CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_ASSOCIATION:
> > > break;
> >
> > This will also cause CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_UNKNOWN to fall through,
> > was that intended?
>
> Even though nothing sets the state to CONNMAN_SERVICE_STATE_UNKNOWN via
> this function, we should not let that fall through. I'll fix on Monday.
Actually, setting state to unknown was already possible from all states
except failure. I looked at the code and couldn't figure out any real
reason behind a check for the failed state so I'll go ahedad and apply
this one.
Cheers,
Patrik
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
