On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:49:53PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:37 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > As discussed in linux-wireless mailint list, adding and removing > > stations for mesh topologies is not necessary. Since doing it triggers > > bugs, the sugestion was to simply disable it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Simon Raffeiner <sturmflut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Andrey Yurovsky <andrey@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Javier Cardona <javier@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > net/wireless/nl80211.c | 47 > > +++++++++++------------------------------------ > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > index 5b79ecf..176b8fe 100644 > > --- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > +++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > @@ -2001,6 +2001,10 @@ static int nl80211_new_station(struct sk_buff > > *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > > > memset(¶ms, 0, sizeof(params)); > > > > + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP && > > + dev->ieee80211_ptr->iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_MAC]) > > return -EINVAL; > > You clearly didn't ever try this code. > > johannes Sorry. This code has obviously given me an oops. I did it in a hurry and thought that was a good optimization to get out as early as possible in the case the device was not in AP mode. I have fixed it, but I would like to do a more thorough test now to make up for my mistake. So, is there any test tool around? I am playing with iw code to do these tests. Any recommendations for the values of listen interval and the acceptable values for supported rates and aid? Regards, Cascardo.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
