On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 19:56 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Some applications using wireless extensions expect to be able to > remove a key that doesn't exist. One example is wpa_supplicant > which doesn't actually change behaviour when running into an > error while trying to do that, but it prints an error message > which users interpret as wpa_supplicant having problems. It sounds like you are working around a userspace problem in the kernel. > The safe thing to do is not change the behaviour of wireless > extensions any more, so when the driver reports -ENOENT let > the wext bridge code return success to userspace. To guarantee > this, also document that drivers should return -ENOENT when the > key doesn't exist. You patch is changing the behavior or wireless extensions. It would be much more reasonable for wpa_supplicant not to remove non-existent keys or (if it's unsafe or non-practical for some reason) not to report -ENOENT to the user. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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
