On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 16:04 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > 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. More a "user problem" rather than "userspace problem"... > > 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. Umm, no... my previous patch changed the behaviour and this restores it. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
