On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 20:03 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 08:39 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -2845,6 +2852,10 @@ static int ieee80211_mgmt_tx(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev,
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
> > >
> > > + /* if no channel was specified, use the current one */
> > > + if (chanctx_conf && !chan)
> > > + chan = chanctx_conf->def.chan;
> > > +
> > > if (chanctx_conf)
> > > need_offchan = chan != chanctx_conf->def.chan;
> > > else
> > > @@ -2852,6 +2863,12 @@ static int ieee80211_mgmt_tx(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev,
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* at this point a channel should have been chosen */
> > > + if (!chan) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > These two changes make no sense at all. If you look at the function
> > you'll see that "chan" isn't used at all after the check,
>
> uhm? it is passed to ieee80211_start_roc_work() right after (this part has not
> been changed).
> 2904 ret = ieee80211_start_roc_work(local, sdata, chan,
No, you can't get there without need_offchan.
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
