Hello.
On 10.02.23 11:18, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Stefan, Jakub,
kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 3 Feb 2023 20:19:23 -0800:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:00:41 +0100 Miquel Raynal wrote:
+static int nl802154_trigger_scan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
+{
+ struct cfg802154_registered_device *rdev = info->user_ptr[0];
+ struct net_device *dev = info->user_ptr[1];
+ struct wpan_dev *wpan_dev = dev->ieee802154_ptr;
+ struct wpan_phy *wpan_phy = &rdev->wpan_phy;
+ struct cfg802154_scan_request *request;
+ u8 type;
+ int err;
+
+ /* Monitors are not allowed to perform scans */
+ if (wpan_dev->iftype == NL802154_IFTYPE_MONITOR)
extack ?
Thanks for pointing at it, I just did know about it. I did convert
most of the printk's into extack strings. Shall I keep both or is fine
to just keep the extack thing?
For now I've dropped the printk's, please tell me if this is wrong.
+ return -EPERM;
Stefan, do you prefer a series of patches applying on top of your
current next or should I re-roll the entire series (scan + beacons)?
I am preparing a series applying on top of the current list of applied
patches. This means next PR to net maintainers will include this patch
as it is today + fixes on top. If this is fine for both parties, I will
send these (including the other changes discussed with Alexander). Just
let me know.
On top please. The other patches are already sitting in a published git
tree and I want to avoid doing a rebase on the published tree.
Once your new patches are in and Jakub is happy I will send an updated
pull request with them included.
regards
Stefan Schmidt
