On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 10:01 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> On 03/21/2018 02:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:59 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote:
> > >
> > > + if (info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_CONTROL_PORT_OVER_NL80211]) {
> > > + if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SOCKET_OWNER])
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> >
> > There might be value in adding GENL_SET_ERR_MSG() calls to new
> > instances of -EINVAL, but if you don't want to do that now I won't
> > insist (and perhaps add some when I apply the patches).
> >
>
> Sure, that sounds easy enough. Did you see the TODO comments I added in
> RFC v5 0/9 message? I need your help figuring out how you want to
> handle those. Those are pretty esoteric though and would require more
> surgery.
Sorry, I hadn't. I'll take a look now.
> Any chance that we can merge the non-controversial bits of this RFC so
> that we can get some wider testing and start encouraging non-mac80211
> based drivers to support these mechanisms?
Yeah, sure, we can do that.
johannes
