On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > What if CRDA replies in order, i.e. replies to the user requested one > > first instead of the disassoc requested one? > > Are you questioning the order of udev events and how CRDA processes them? No, no, not really. > If CRDA is present it should get the udev event for any valid request > and process it accordingly. If the request is bogus it'll prevent any > further processing on cfg80211 given that we simply bail out of > processing requests until last_request->processed is true. The fix for > that lies in the timeout on patch 2. This patch just ensures that we > make sure to clear out any pending requests prior to doing a restore > of regulatory settings. > > > Why do we even require crda to reply to the first in list, rather than > > any one? > > The order should not matter except that we want the queue to be > cleared before processing core hints when doing restoration, otherwise > the next user hint in the queue can be bogus and it will prevent a > restore. I'm just thinking this temporary clearing could cause us to reject a reply from CRDA that's coming in at the same time that is due to a user request. 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
