On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> We're not checking here if this was a managed wiphy or not, we >> want userspace to be able to tell if a wiphy was managed or not. > > Ah I see what you did, yes that is what I wanted but since you allowed > for self managed regdomains *first* the placement of this patch in > terms of order would mean we are not giving userspace information it > should have needed right after this commit. After your 4th patch we do > though. We want commits to work well linearly in history so can you > move this patch to number 2 in the series and bump number 2 to be > patch number 3? That way right after commit 2 we are not lying to > userspace. > > The question about having userspace specify the wiphy still stands as > I'd expect userspace asking only for a regd for a wiphy would want > only that one, not all, or the central one. In general, we want to return only the regdom of the wiphy the user asked for. And yea, I'll fix it. But there's a tricky part here. In the not-self-managed case, if a user specifies a wiphy-idx, and there's no wiphy->regd, we'll return the global one. This is fine, since in effect, the global regd is the one used by this wiphy anyway. Essentially we want this part to just be able to add the wiphy-idx to wpa_s code for GET_REG, and remain backward compatible. But like I said above, it's the right thing to do. Arik -- 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
