On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:45PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > 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? That seems unlikely. The only times I recall seeing this reported is when a mac80211-based driver is used. If there was something depending on it, other drivers would be doing it, and I/we would see this "error" reported elsewhere. FWIW, the iwconfig semantic is "disabling encryption", not "deleting the key". Disabling encryption that is already disabled should be treated as a no-op, not as an error. John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
