On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 05:28 -0800, Avinash Patil wrote: > > - if (netif_carrier_ok(dev)) > > + if (wiphy_ext_feature_isset(&rdev->wiphy, > > + NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_OFFCHAN_CAC) && > > + netif_carrier_ok(dev)) > > return -EBUSY; > > >Wait - doesn't that have to be !feature_isset()? > > >johannes > > If Offchannel CAC is supported (driver has set this bit in wiphy's > extended features) & carrier is ON, return EBUSY as offchannel CAC may > be ongoing, isnt it? Well, my thinking is this - a new feature flag should allow something new. Therefore, the patch should essentially be this: + if (!new_feature) if (do_old_check) Now wrapping that into a single if gives - if (do_old_check) + if (!new_feature && do_old_check) so the patch looks wrong to me. johannes -- 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
