On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:12:11AM +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote: >> 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. > > Hm, that's fine if its well understood by userspace that even if > a wiphy has a specific regd (priv one) that the central one is the one that is > used for it anyway, the wiphy regd would just be informational. It may be > a bit odd to give the central one if the wiphy-idx has no regd in this > case then, so just think about this a bit, wihch is why I am a bit > inclined to just have cfg80211 not return any regd if the wiphy has > no priv or self-manged regd. > >> 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 > > Sure, you have a handle of what is needed, so just make the API very > clear to users so they don't think that if cfg80211 returns a regd > for a wiphy if its a priv regd that its not the one that applies > but rather informational for what it started with. Do you see a problem with v5 of the patches? 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
