On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 21:17 +0100, ext Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 20:53 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 17:07 +0200, luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > * I kept the return value in the sched_scan_stop chain, because, at least with > > > wl12xx, the call can fail (due to OOM for instance). I think it's cleaner > > > this way. > > > > What's going to happen then though? Would it make sense to pre-allocate > > this at start() time, so it can cleanly stop regardless of what's going > > on? I can see start() failing, but stop() failing seems a bit hard to > > work with in wpa_supplicant? > > Actually so the nl80211 interface has to be able to return something > like "no such operation in progress" or whatever, but I'm not sure about > the driver interface -- -ENOMEM seems like a stupid failure for stopping > something, and then the above applies ... Indeed returning -ENOMEM sounds stupid when trying to clean up something... In wl12xx there are two other ways the operation can fail: the stop command can fail, and in this case we start a hw recovery, so there's no problem; the stop command can time out, which is not handled. Maybe the timeout should also trigger a hw recovery, but that's a different story. So, the only thing remaining is the OOM. I guess I'll just have to deal with it in the driver. We don't pre-alloc any commands at the moment, but maybe it will have to be done in this case... Let's see. I'll change the code so that the driver sched_scan stop interface returns void. Regarding the "no such operation in progress", I actually handle that by simply returning with no error. Do you think I should return an error in that case instead? -- Cheers, Luca. -- 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
