On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 09:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 13:57 +0530, Mahesh Palivela wrote:
>
> > > + 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;
>
>
> > > + 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;
>
>
> > For loops in both functions seems to be similar. One return false, other
> > return -EINVAL. Can we remove duplication?
>
> True, but they check different flags. I suppose we could have a common
> function where the checked flags are passed in, I can try that.
I'll add this to the patch:
http://p.sipsolutions.net/24eb25fb98ef2d0b.txt
--
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
