On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:07:17PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.
yeah. Ok I'll keep my version.
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
