On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:50 -0400, Richard Farina wrote: > >> > This won't quite work. monitor interfaces are always slaves in the sense >> > that their channel setting never takes precedence over anything, so if >> > you add another interface and do something there, the hardware will >> > happily channel switch away from the monitor channel, but it will still >> > report the old channel here that you set. >> > >> > I have no idea how to _properly_ fix this though, since eventually we'll >> > have a situation where you can have multiple interfaces active on >> > different channels, so that monitors don't have a fixed channel anyway. >> > >> > Maybe this patch is sufficient since it works in the case people care >> > about when they _only_ have a monitor interface, but I think it'd be >> > nicer if it wouldn't report anything in the other cases. >> > >> > >> Is this a NACK or a "I wish there was a better way to do this but I'll >> allow it until a better way if found"? > > I haven't really made up my mind. I really dislike the reporting of > wrong information though, see my other email. > > johannes > > -- > 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 > Reporting wrong information doesn't make sense to me and thus I also think returning -EINVAL is a good idea in such case. Thomas (Mister_X) -- 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
