On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 11:23:43AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:08 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:00:50AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 14:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, yeah I see where I was making an incorrect assumption here. > > > > > > > > There still is a case here where userpsace can try to add a sta twice > > > > and the second parameters passed would be ignored. > > > > > > Don't we show that -EEXIST to userspace then? I thought we did. > > > > We do, but why don't we *first* try to check for its existence? > > Because that's racy -- after the check completes and before we go try to > insert a station might have come to life. Well, it might actually be ok > due to external factors (AP mode _only_ gets stations from userspace) > but it seems better to not rely on that. I see. > What problem were you trying to solve btw? Nothing in particular, I was just reviewing sta code path. Luis -- 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
