On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 18:53 +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 17:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 17:25 +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > The return value of ieee80211_mesh_csa_beacon is not aligned with the > > > return value of ieee80211_csa_beacon() and > > > ieee80211_ibss_csa_beacon(). For consistency and to be able to use > > > both functions with similar code, change ieee80211_mesh_csa_beacon() > > > not to send the bss changed notification itself, but return what has > > > changed so the caller can send the notification instead. > > > > It seems to me that the caller should be updated? > > With this patch only, the caller just checks if the return value is < 0 > (ie. an error), otherwise it assumes it was okay. With this patch, we > still return < 0 on errors, but we return positive, saying that the > beacon has changed. > > My next patch (5/5) changes the caller so that the value is used > properly (ie. ORing the return value to the changed variable). But doesn't that leave this patch broken? 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
