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
