On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:57 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 17:09 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > > > > > > + if (need_offchan && !chan) > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > @@ -2847,10 +2853,14 @@ static int ieee80211_mgmt_tx(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev, > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > > chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf); > > > > > > > > - if (chanctx_conf) > > > > - need_offchan = chan != chanctx_conf->def.chan; > > > > - else > > > > + if (chanctx_conf) { > > > > + need_offchan = chan && (chan != chanctx_conf->def.chan); > > > > + } else if (!chan) { > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto out_unlock; > > > > + } else { > > > > need_offchan = true; > > > > + } > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > It seems this would be clearer? > > > http://p.sipsolutions.net/b8a03c85f0e8b89f.txt > > > > Actually, no, I like your version better. > > uhm, having one else less looks better..why did you change your mind? > Maybe you version is not entirely equivalent? It's not, but that wouldn't matter, it's different I think only if you have input from cfg80211 as "!chan && offchan". It just seems to me that your version is clearer, first you check if you need offchan, and if you do but don't have a channel you abort. Then you check if you might need offchan for another reason, etc. 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