On 21 January 2014 15:55, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 15:21 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote:
>> If CSA for AP interface failed and the interface
>> was not stopped afterwards another CSA request
>> would leak sdata->u.ap.next_beacon.
>
>> void ieee80211_csa_finish(struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
>> {
>> struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata = vif_to_sdata(vif);
>> @@ -3019,15 +3034,9 @@ static void ieee80211_csa_finalize(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata)
>> sdata->vif.csa_active = false;
>> switch (sdata->vif.type) {
>> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
>> - err = ieee80211_assign_beacon(sdata, sdata->u.ap.next_beacon);
>> + err = ieee80211_ap_finish_csa(sdata);
>> if (err < 0)
>> return;
>> -
>> - changed |= err;
>
> This looks a bit like somebody had intended to batch the
> ieee80211_bss_info_change_notify() calls, which would probably be a good
> thing. You're breaking them apart even further - maybe we should
> actually batch them instead by moving ieee80211_bss_info_change_notify()
> after the switch()?
Sounds good. I'll fix it.
Michał
--
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
