On 11/07/2011 09:42 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
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.
Ok, I think I understand, and that sounds fine to me.
Thanks,
Ben
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
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
