From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3613 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753417AbYCZPuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:50:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:18:59 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Buesch , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: silently accept deletion of non-existant key Message-ID: <20080326151859.GB3457@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20080326_155024_825474_8865907B) References: <1206459795-18167-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <1206462125.16475.303.camel@johannes.berg> <20080325163751.GA19318@tuxdriver.com> <200803251812.45916.mb@bu3sch.de> <20080325173628.GA3026@tuxdriver.com> <1206535674.16475.314.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1206535674.16475.314.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:54PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > FWIW, the iwconfig semantic is "disabling encryption", not "deleting > > the key". Disabling encryption that is already disabled should be > > treated as a no-op, not as an error. > > I wish semantics were actually documented ;) I guess you can see it that > way, feel free to apply the patch based on that. Just going by the man page...still, I know what you mean! :-) I'll apply it...thanks! John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com