On 15-2-2017 11:34, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 15-2-2017 10:48, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 10:36 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not really sure what to do - we don't really want to print a >>>> message on something that might have been received from the peer, I >>>> think? Though I suppose we should return 0 for the invalid >>>> combinations, indicating that they're not supported. >>> >>> Ah. This is all non-functional code yet, right? At least having a >>> static non-inline function in ieee80211.h will give build issues I >>> would think. >> >> No, I marked it __maybe_unused so it'll be fine. I didn't want to have >> it inlined if you use it multiple times in a single source file, but I >> didn't want to move it to somewhere else either ... > > Ah. Now I understand the trickery ;-) Was there really no "somewhere > else" to move it, because honestly it is confusing and a bit wasteful if > used multiple times in cfg80211 and/or drivers. Although exporting it also comes at a cost. Gr. AvS > Gr. AvS > >>> Anyway, I would indeed return 0 and have caller deal with that. >> >> Yeah, I'll do that. >> >> johannes >>
