On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:47:08AM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 08:28 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Well it seems to me that if the driver determines that the hardware > > is > > > unreachable or not responding, it would unregister it from mac80211, > > > which would clean up all user-visible state, obviously. > > > > The drivers would not know this until it fails on the first call > > from mac80211 which would be start(). > > Which is why this patch may be a good way to solve that particular > problem. Sure but as you and I noted this is not the only thing required. > > > The patch above seems ok to me, but basically papers over the > > problem. > > > If the start there fails, the driver will have to unregister the hw > > > since any subsequent start will fail as well. > > > > How about just having mac80211 do that for drivers where the start() > > fails and we are resuming? I can give that a shot. > > No way, the driver will invariably assume things are still going and > might later unregister etc. Too much magic. So you want drivers to handle start() failures (even if its not for resume) with an unregistration to mac80211? 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
