On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29 October 2013 11:25, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> How do we know that prohibited_flags won't have IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR >> or IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS set? >> >> Also why is IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS used and not IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR >> instead? I sent patches to help clarify this situation around usage of >> both no-ibss and active scan flags, by merging them to no-ir. I'm not >> sure of the status of those patches going in. >> > > I am not sure. OK please try to be for changes like these. > Even without my patch seems IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR is > added to prohibited_flags and have different meaning (I think). IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR has only one meaning, its not subjective. > In orginal code we have: > > if (c->flags & prohibited_flags & ~IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR) > > So, we skiping CHAN_RADAR anyway? I am not sure we should change > prohibited_flags to different name or stop skiping CHAN_RADAR and > modify upper layer - cfg80211_reg_can_beacon() in such case. I took a look and I'd prefer that this be dealt with elsewhere, in particular you are right that cfg80211_reg_can_beacon() seems like a much more suitable place for this check now. Luis -- 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
