On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 18:58 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote: >> >>> void (*set_monitor_enabled)(struct wiphy *wiphy, bool enabled); >>> + struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap *(*get_ht_cap)(struct wiphy *wiphy, >>> + struct net_device *dev, >>> + enum ieee80211_band band); >> >> Ok so ... I really don't like this whole concept to start with, but you >> convinced me it was needed. This is just ugly though. Now you can >> suddenly change the HT caps randomly at runtime? That's ... distressing >> for userspace! >> >> Is there any chance this can just be a pointer inside the wdev struct? >> Then at least we can verify it in NETDEV_UP if you had invalid HT caps >> originally, etc. > > Yea I guess it can be confusing. Sure we can make it part of the wdev > and add some verification. Propagate the pointers from the mac80211 > vif in ieee80211_do_open(). > But does cfg80211 code even have a hook on NETDEV_UP? I found it cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call(), sorry for the hassle. I'll change to wdev. -- 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
