On 10/21/2014 01:10 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 12:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>>> /* give it a proper name */
>>> - dev_set_name(&rdev->wiphy.dev, PHY_NAME "%d", rdev->wiphy_idx);
>>> + if (requested_name && requested_name[0]) {
>>> + struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev2;
>>> + int wiphy_idx, taken = -1, result, digits;
>>> +
>>> + /* Code below is from cfg80211_dev_rename */
>>
>> can you refactor this then please?
>
> I'll see what I can do on this, as well as take care of
> the rest of the comments.
I was thinking, this could be made simpler if we reduced restrictions on
the naming. Basically, let user (re)name the wiphy however they want, as
long as it name is not currently in use.
Might require a bit of extra locking and checking instead of just assuming the
atomic-inc and phy%d is unique, but maybe that is worth the tradeoff?
I'll get started on trying to refactor with existing constraints, but
let me know how you feel about relaxing the restrictions...
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
