On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:40 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 11/07/2011 01:06 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > >> @@ -537,6 +539,12 @@ int __cfg80211_mlme_assoc(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev, > >> memcpy(&req.crypto, crypt, sizeof(req.crypto)); > >> req.use_mfp = use_mfp; > >> req.prev_bssid = prev_bssid; > >> + req.flags = assoc_flags; > >> + if (ht_capa) > >> + memcpy(&req.ht_capa, ht_capa, sizeof(req.ht_capa)); > >> + if (ht_capa_mask) > >> + memcpy(&req.ht_capa_mask, ht_capa_mask, > >> + sizeof(req.ht_capa_mask)); > > > > I think somewhere here you should mask this mask with the > > ht_capa_mod_mask. That way, you force drivers to advertise a correct > > ht_capa_mod_mask, if you don't do that we will certainly see drivers use > > more of ht_capa than contained in ht_capa_mod_mask. Probably should be a > > helper function since I think you might need it in more places. > > This goes back to how hard we want to be on user-space. If we are lax, > and just ignore settings that are not (yet?) supported by the kernel, > then user-space becomes much easier to make backwards/forwards > compat. That is my preferred approach. No, not really -- I'm not saying reject it, I'm just saying don't let userspace configure more than the driver said it could configure. if you just do essentially "configured_masked &= advertised_mask" you still keep this property you want, but you force drivers to advertise everything users will be able to change otherwise it just doesn't take effect. 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
