On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 23:19 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> + NL80211_CMD_CRIT_PROTOCOL_START, > >> + NL80211_CMD_CRIT_PROTOCOL_STOP, > >> + NL80211_CMD_CRIT_PROTOCOL_STOPPED_EVENT, > > > > Why use a separate command ID? Usually we use the same _STOP for the > > event as well, I think? Except maybe scan which you can't stop? Not > > sure ... Anyway I don't mind, just wondering if there was a special > > reason to do this. > > > > This is my first nl80211 event :-) I looked at the ft_event thingy. I am > fine using the _STOP instead. Ah, but that didn't have a command. I'd just use _STOP in this case. > >> + nla_put_failure: > >> + if (hdr) > >> + genlmsg_cancel(msg, hdr); > > > > There's not really a reason to cancel, but we still do most of the time. > > I guess we can keep it, but it doesn't matter :) > > If it not really needed it may call for separate patch removing all > occurrences? Yeah, agree. > >> trace_rdev_return_void(&rdev->wiphy); > >> -} $ > >> +}$ > > > > Heh, thanks. > > Have to thank my editor, I guess. Trailing whitespace? Plenty (see the $ signs I just inserted) 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
