public inbox for linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nl80211: Add set/get for frag/rts threshold and retry limits
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:48:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1239997685.4543.1.camel@johannes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090417193838.GA21250@jm.kir.nu>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1808 bytes --]

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 22:38 +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote: 
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:29:33PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > +	if (changed & WIPHY_PARAM_RTS_THRESHOLD) {
> > > +		if (local->ops->set_rts_threshold)
> > > +			local->ops->set_rts_threshold(local_to_hw(local),
> > > +						      wiphy->rts_threshold);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > That could return an error. (so do the changes the other way around)
> 
> I noticed, but ended up following the existing behavior in wext.c. While
> that may not be the ideal source for good behavior, at least this is
> consistent. Should both of them be changed? What exactly should happen
> on error?

Well if you do the rts change first, and return early, you change none
of the other parameters when that has an error.

> > > +		result = rdev->ops->set_wiphy_params(&rdev->wiphy, changed);
> > > +		if (result)
> > > +			goto bad_res;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > If that returns an error we need to roll back the values?
> 
> I thought about this, but ended up not doing that because the existing
> (wext) code seemed to behave in the same way. It is unclear whether the
> error there would indicate that some of the parameters were taken into
> use, but not all. Unless we provide mechanism for returning that
> information (e.g., separate calls for each parameter), I'm not sure what
> exactly should be done here. Just leaving the parameters (which were
> validated before) in struct wiphy seemed like the safest (and well,
> certainly easiest ;-) alternative.

And then here you can just mandate that it's either-or and returning an
error means that you haven't done any of the requested changes...

Or you just remove the ability to return an error and let whoever needs
that ability for their hardware deal with it :P

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-17 19:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-17 18:46 [PATCH] nl80211: Add set/get for frag/rts threshold and retry limits Jouni Malinen
2009-04-17 19:29 ` Johannes Berg
2009-04-17 19:38   ` Jouni Malinen
2009-04-17 19:48     ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2009-04-17 20:11       ` [PATCH v2] " Jouni Malinen
2009-04-18 12:18         ` Johannes Berg
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-20 12:50 [PATCH] " Johannes Berg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1239997685.4543.1.camel@johannes.local \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=j@w1.fi \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox