From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1342623188-10796-1-git-send-email-linux@hschmitt.de> <500F9DAC.8040509@hschmitt.de> <50100AB5.8050203@hschmitt.de> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:07:07 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] obexd: Fix bug in irmc phonebook and prevent to reintroduce it From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz To: Harald Schmitt Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Harald, On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > Hi Harald, > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Harald Schmitt wrote: > >>> While the backend indeed take an absolute path this doesnt mean we >>> have to send as absolute path, not to mention it is not compatible >>> with mimetypes which is what TYPE header describes, even in case of >>> PBAP it is wrong to send absolute path in SETPATH. >> >> Patch 1/2 only changes the way phonebook_pull is called (with absolute >> path). It has nothing changed about the path resolution/interpretation >> that is asked from the client. Sorry for my bad explanations. > > Yep, only now I realized that this is not the client side, so it is > probably fine. > >>> >>> To avoid this problems we send relative although we do accept >>> absolute, but to avoid problems with stack interpreting absolute path >>> as not valid as OBEX spec state we always send relative paths. >> >> In fact irmc implementation at the moment only accepts relative paths >> and I did not change this. > > No problem, I will make it less strict to follow PBAP in another patch. > >>> >>>> The patch 1/2 fixes irmc to query phonebook implementation for the well >>>> known absolute path. This was changed in pbap.c with the patch you >>>> stated, but forgot to change in irmc.c. >>>> Patch 2/2 just replaces the well-known phonebook paths which >>>> phoenbook-ebook.c and phonebook-tracker.c support with constants. >>> >>> Im fine with converting to constants, it is more the sending of >>> absolute path that Im not comfortable because of the potential >>> interoperability problems it could cause. >> >> I probably used the wrong term "well known" what I meant by well known >> are the paths that phonebook-tracker and phonebook-ebook knows that it >> should fetch the contacts, etc. and these are absolute paths. It is not >> about the "well known" paths from the pbap spec > > No problem, I should have looked what the code was doing before > drawing any conclusion, anyway I will apply this patches asap. Patches are now pushed upstream, thanks. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz