On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:26:30AM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 16:12 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > There is no need to check for last_request as the callers of > > update_all_wiphy_regulatory() ensure its present. > > Are you sure? I had all this blow up all around me. Interesting -- well that's the thing, where and why would it have blown up? I did test it and didn't run into it. Luis > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > net/wireless/reg.c | 2 -- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c > > index 8bf999d..6c45832 100644 > > --- a/net/wireless/reg.c > > +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c > > @@ -1006,8 +1006,6 @@ static void handle_band_custom(struct wiphy *wiphy, enum ieee80211_band band, > > > > static bool ignore_reg_update(struct wiphy *wiphy, enum reg_set_by setby) > > { > > - if (!last_request) > > - return true; > > if (setby == REGDOM_SET_BY_CORE && > > wiphy->custom_regulatory) > > return true; -- 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