Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bt: bas_client: Fix CONTAINER_OF invocation #13124

Closed

Conversation

trond-snekvik
Copy link
Contributor

The bas_client used the k_delayed_work struct instead of the k_work struct to resolve the bt_bas_client with CONTAINER_OF. As k_work is the first member in k_delayed_work, this isn't an active bug, but zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr#61962 adds a static assert for this, which starts failing in the upmerge.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the changelog-entry-required Update changelog before merge. Remove label if entry is not needed or already added. label Nov 17, 2023
@NordicBuilder
Copy link
Contributor

NordicBuilder commented Nov 17, 2023

Test specification

CI/Jenkins/NRF

  • Integration Platforms

CI/Jenkins/integration

Test Module File based changes Manually selected West overwrite
desktop52_verification X
test-fw-nrfconnect-ble X
test-fw-nrfconnect-ble_samples X
test-sdk-find-my X

Detailed information of selected test modules

Note: This message is automatically posted and updated by the CI

The bas_client used the k_delayed_work struct instead of the k_work
struct to resolve the bt_bas_client with CONTAINER_OF. As k_work is the
first member in k_delayed_work, this isn't an active bug, but
zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr#61962 adds a static assert for this, which
starts failing in the upmerge.

Signed-off-by: Trond Einar Snekvik <Trond.Einar.Snekvik@nordicsemi.no>
Copy link
Contributor

@nordicjm nordicjm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Part of #12619

Copy link
Contributor

@nordicjm nordicjm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

-1 to prevent merge, fix is OK but is already part of upmerge and would rather not have to fix a rebase

@joerchan
Copy link
Contributor

-1 to prevent merge, fix is OK but is already part of upmerge and would rather not have to fix a rebase

Might as well close it then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog-entry-required Update changelog before merge. Remove label if entry is not needed or already added.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants