Hi Chris, On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 12:04 PM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Luiz, > > >Try to capture one of them using btmon and then add to the patch description. > > Thanks, I have one now and will add for v2. > > >> >> - 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. > > I guess you meant `if (!pdu_type)`? That correctly handles the 0x40 case (where > pdu_type becomes 0), but it would miss non-connectable directed advertisements > (PDU type 0x04), right? Or maybe you meant something else? Yes, we can just test for !pdu_type and return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND skipping any testing of bits. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
