On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 19:00 +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 05:51:57PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 18:44 +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > > --- uml.orig/net/mac80211/cfg.c 2009-04-16 18:20:19.000000000 +0300 > > > +++ uml/net/mac80211/cfg.c 2009-04-16 18:33:44.000000000 +0300 > > > @@ -1167,7 +1167,8 @@ static int ieee80211_scan(struct wiphy * > > > > > > if (sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION && > > > sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC && > > > - sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT) > > > + sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT && > > > + (sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP || sdata->u.ap.beacon)) > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > Should this return a different error code for AP then? Maybe -EBUSY for > > AP && beacon? Then again, EBUSY is already returned for "already > > scanning". hmm. > > I thought about that for a moment, but did not come up with a good error > code.. ;-) EBUSY is not a good option here since that could be used by > applications to decide that they should try again (which would not help > here at all). If someone has a better one in mind, I would have no > problems changing this, but I don't see much problems with EOPNOTSUPP > either. Ok. Good enough for me :) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
