On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 07:30 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:48:36AM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:09 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > I can put a note, if that helps, or are you strongly opposed to this? :) > > > Just an itch to scratch really, have you seen the output of iwlist on > > > disabled channels? It can get long on radar/no-ibss channels. We can also > > > handle this in userspace but seems pointles if the channels is disabled. > > > > Well, come to think of it, at least for programmers it might be > > confusing when they know they've put some flag into orig_flags, and then > > it disappears? I'm not really _strongly_ opposed to this, but I really > > just don't see the point :) > > Have you bothered calling iw list with a long list of crap on the channels? Heh, no, but I rarely call iw at all. I just added a patch to iw to suppress it instead, I think that's more appropriate. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
