On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 14:29 -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 14:24 -0800, reinette chatre wrote: > > > > 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. > > Ah, but the error code is lost, the driver might have returned -EBUSY or > something. I'm not sure we want to pass that up, it might be better not > to, not sure. I see. I am not familiar with the upper layers, but giving them insight into the failure may be useful. I'll change patch to do this. Thank you very much 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
