Hi Stefan,
stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:26:45 +0100:
> 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.
Thanks a lot for the quick answer!
Thanks,
Miquèl
