On Friday 28 December 2012 06:39 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 15:51 +0530, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
+ * @acl_type: ACL policy that driver supports,
+ * see&enum nl80211_acl_policy_attr.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, in particular not the way you use it.
What if a driver supports a blacklist but not a whitelist? It seems that
it should be a bitfield. Also setting a default that isn't "unsupported"
is a bad idea.
+ NL80211_ATTR_ACL_POLICY,
+
+ NL80211_ATTR_MAC_ADDRS,
+
+ NL80211_ATTR_MAC_ACL_MAX,
+
+ NL80211_ATTR_ACL_TYPE,
+ if (WARN_ON((wiphy->acl_type<= NL80211_ACL_POLICY_MAX)&&
So basically you could remove the acl_type field completely.
I think maybe if you want to continue supporting the white-& blacklist
you should change it back to nested attributes, but treat the blacklist
there as an optimisation and ignore it for feature advertising.
Ok, so we dont need any mechanism to advertise supporting acl types at
all because any ACL supporting driver is supposed to support white
list?.
Vasanth
--
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
