On Tuesday 25 March 2008 17:37:51 John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:22:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 11:43 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > From: John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Otherwise, 'iwconfig wlan0 key off' with no key set results in: > > > > > > Error for wireless request "Set Encode" (8B2A) : > > > SET failed on device wlan0 ; No such file or directory. > > > > And what is the problem with us telling iwconfig that there was no key? > > You should argue for iwconfig ignoring that particular problem, but I > > don't think we should do so in the kernel. > > Why is it a problem? How does it hurt anything? How is it useful > to return an error? > > FWIW, other drivers seem to accept it. I don't see why we need to > complain. Well, it makes sense to return an error in this case, but if common practice is to ignore it in old WE based drivers, we should adhere to that to preserve userspace ABI compatibility. So the real question is: Is there any userspace program that relies on this ABI detail? -- Greetings Michael. -- 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
