On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:16:03PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.
ah, you are right. Now I see why these two changes do not make sense at all :-)
Thanks!
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
