> > I'm fine with not allowing the cook flag to change,
> > seems like a pretty special case anyway. Or, we can
> > allow it to change, but only while the interface is
> > down, right?
> jup, works:
>
> command failed: Function not implemented (-38), or should
> we use a different error code like -EBUSY/-EOPNOTSUPP?
I think typically I'd use ebusy, and I think it'd be more descriptive here?
> +ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ if (test_bit(SDATA_STATE_RUNNING, &sdata->state)) {
There's an inline for this, I think?
>Â static inline bool ieee80211_sdata_running(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data
heh, by accident it's even in your patch :)
ACK with those two changes.
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
