On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 14:34 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Johannes Berg
> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 17:53 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> >> +bool reg_check_bandwidth(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> >> + u32 center_freq_khz, u32 bw_khz)
> >> +{
> >> + const struct ieee80211_reg_rule *reg_rule;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * This interpretation is a bit of a strange quirk in the regulatory
> >> + * rules definitions that we have today: each 20 MHz channel must fit
> >> + * entirely into a single regulatory range, but if this range forbids
> >> + * using more than 20 MHz then it forbids even using a small part of
> >> + * this for the wider channel.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> + reg_rule = freq_reg_info(wiphy, center_freq_khz);
> >> + if (!IS_ERR(reg_rule))
> >> + return reg_rule->freq_range.max_bandwidth_khz >= bw_khz;
> >
> > This needs rcu_read_lock() obviously... Fixed in my version in the wip
> > branch.
>
> Looks good, the get_wiphy_regdom() change above seemed like it'd
> belong on a separate patch though.
Humm, yeah, wtf. That belongs into the RCU change.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
