On 08/20/2012 09:18 PM, Pedersen, Thomas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:29:19AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> On 08/20/2012 10:13 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >>> No objection, but doesn't nl80211 already validate that (assuming you >>> give the right pattern_max_len, of course)? > > Thanks for pointing that out. That check would be completely redundant > then. > > Kalle, > > Can you revert this patch? Otherwise the followup will just do the same. I can revert the patch. But IMHO the check isn't that bad, and even cfg80211 can be buggy sometimes ;) >> And ath6kl even uses different define pattern_max_len: >> >> wiphy->wowlan.pattern_max_len = WOW_PATTERN_SIZE; >> >> But the value is still same: >> >> #define WOW_PATTERN_SIZE 64 >> #define WOW_MASK_SIZE 64 >> >> Thomas, can you please check this? Do we really need two different >> defines? And which one is the correct one here? > > No AFAICT there is no reason to have two different defines. I can submit > a small patch consolidating these, but it would remove the above hunk > anyway so I need to know whether you'll revert or not. Thanks. I'll revert the patch so please prepare your patch without the check. Kalle -- 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
