On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 13:57 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 13:25 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > ieee80211_hw_config can return an error when the hardware > > has rfkill enabled. A WARN_ON() is too harsh for this > > failure as it is a valid scenario. Only comment this warning > > as we would like to have it back when rfkill is integrated into > > mac80211. > > > > Also reintroduce number of printks that will happen in this case. > > > > This patch essentially reverts patch: > > 5f0387fc3337ca26f0745f945f550f0c3734960f > > "mac80211: clean up ieee80211_hw_config errors" > > > > Things not reverted is the reintroduction of a comment > > and debug statement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > There are several places where ieee80211_hw_config's return code is not > > checked. I did not change those as it appears to be intended considering > > that the patch being reverted had nothing to do with them not using the > > return code. > > > > It may also be that in this patch only the second hunk be necessary. Please > > provide feedback in this regard. > > I suppose the probability of the beacon interval changing is rather low, > but should we propagate the error in that case rather than just using > -EINVAL? I do not understand. By returning -EINVAL the error is propagated up to nl80211 from where the call came. > > The scanning hunks I don't really care about, though it does seem a > little pointless to print something when changing channel fails, that > must be one of the most obvious failure modes and also rather unlikely. > Also, that might actually trigger with iwlwifi too in which case every > scan would log it, and there can be lots of scans with NM over time. I will remove these hunks. Thank you Reinette -- 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
