Send connman mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes and extensions for WPS support
(Jose Blanquicet)
2. Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc: Update Security values for services
(Jose Blanquicet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:38:31 +0100
From: Jose Blanquicet <[email protected]>
To: Robert Tiemann <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes and extensions for WPS support
Message-ID:
<cafc8ijk62t+4a147dwtcx+pmnyheg6ssqk2efm9+n0mfcr7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Robert,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Robert Tiemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/21/2018 05:50 PM, Jose Blanquicet wrote:
>>> My current client code constantly scans
>>> for WLANs and reads out all data of all services on _any_ change
>>> reported. Not very efficient, but it turned out to be the most
>>> reliable way to keep up with changes.
>>
>> I would say that avoid doing that is exactly the reason why signals are used
>> :)
>
> I know, earlier versions of my client relied on signals, and I'd
> prefer it this way.
>
> It turned out, however, that some information were missing from the
> signals. That is, I have often received a set of changes by signal,
> but when reading out all services and checking for changes manually,
> I've found more changes that were never reported by signal.
If you find something like this with latest version, try to get the
logs and a patter to reproduce the situation (If possible); then we
will try to fix it together :)
Thanks,
Jose
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:03:29 +0100
From: Jose Blanquicet <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>, Robert Tiemann <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc: Update Security values for services
Message-ID:
<cafc8ijlbwdbhto3kdwynbum+_kqabqy7j3ert3pny6qkso6...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Robert, Daniel,
Sorry the delay.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 02:46 PM, Robert Tiemann wrote:
> This looks quite sane to me. Jose, if don't have any objections, I am
> going to apply both patches.
Unfortunately I have no way to test the path right now but it looks fine for me.
Thanks,
Jose
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23
***************************************
