On 11/10/2012 01:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/net/wireless/chan.c b/net/wireless/chan.c
+static bool cfg80211_check_beacon_chans(struct wiphy *wiphy,
+ u32 center_freq, u32 bw)
+{
+ struct ieee80211_channel *c;
+ u32 freq;
+
+ for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
+ freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
+ freq += 20) {
+ c = ieee80211_get_channel(wiphy, freq);
+ if (!c || c->flags & (IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR))
+ return false;
}
- sec_chan = ieee80211_get_channel(wiphy,
- chandef->chan->center_freq + diff);
- if (!sec_chan) {
+ return true;
+}
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
+static int nl80211_check_sec_chans(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
+ u32 center_freq, u32 bw)
{
- enum nl80211_channel_type tmp;
-
- if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_CHANNEL_TYPE])
- return false;
+ struct ieee80211_channel *c;
+ u32 freq;
- tmp = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_CHANNEL_TYPE]);
- if (tmp != NL80211_CHAN_NO_HT &&
- tmp != NL80211_CHAN_HT20 &&
- tmp != NL80211_CHAN_HT40PLUS &&
- tmp != NL80211_CHAN_HT40MINUS)
- return false;
-
- if (channel_type)
- *channel_type = tmp;
+ for (freq = center_freq - bw/2 + 10;
+ freq <= center_freq + bw/2 - 10;
+ freq += 20) {
+ c = ieee80211_get_channel(&rdev->wiphy, freq);
+ if (!c || c->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
- return true;
+ return 0;
}
For loops in both functions seems to be similar. One return false, other
return -EINVAL. Can we remove duplication?
--
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
