Hi Chris, On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:13 AM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Luiz, > > Thanks for the review! > > Luiz Augusto von Dentz writes: > >Can you include a sample trace of the above? > > Is that with btmon or similar? Sorry, I'm not a regular contributor to this > subsystem :-) > > I mostly have a personal desire to get this merged because it's a particularly > noisy case where I happen to live :-) These are all with 0x40: > > % dmesg | wc -l > 3815 > % dmesg | grep -c 'Unknown advertising' > 3227 Try to capture one of them using btmon and then add to the patch description. > >Also it would be great to have a mgmt-tester for example that attempts to > >generate an advertisement like that to exercise such change. > > Looks like that's in Bluez userspace code right, so what's the order of doing > these things? > > >> - if (evt_type == LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND || > >> - evt_type & LE_EXT_ADV_DIRECT_IND) > >> + if (pdu_type == LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND || > > > >I'm not sure I would keep checking for LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND, maybe > >just return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND, LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND is not > >actually a bit it is the absence of any bits being set, so I guess the > >only invalid adv are the ones for legacy which seem to require a bit > >to be set. > > So are you thinking of doing this? > > if (!(pdu_type & ~(LE_EXT_ADV_DIRECT_IND))) > return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND; We can probably return early on if (!evt_type) return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND since there is no point in evaluating it if it is zero. > Thanks for your help! > > Chris -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
