Julian Calaby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:21, David Kilroy<kilroyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Signed-off-by: David Kilroy <kilroyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> net/wireless/wext-compat.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> index 9e56f35..7dbe6c6 100644 >> --- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> +++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> @@ -204,8 +204,19 @@ int cfg80211_wext_giwrange(struct net_device *dev, >> range->avg_qual.noise = range->max_qual.noise / 2; >> range->avg_qual.updated = range->max_qual.updated; >> >> - range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 | >> - IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP; >> + range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2; > > Should this should go into the for loop too, like how patch 5 works? Err... patch 5 moves this line into the for loop. I moved these in separate patches because: * Indicating available ciphers based on cipher capability is obviously correct. * Indicating WPA/WPA2 based on cipher capability is not obviously correct - and we might want the drivers to indicate this explicitly. * The latter patch can be NACK'd without affecting the former, or the rest of the series (well, apart from patch 22). As it happens, no-one has objected (yet). Apologies if I've completely misunderstood you. Thanks, Dave. -- 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
