From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3257 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755037AbYCYRHN (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:07:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:37:51 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: silently accept deletion of non-existant key Message-ID: <20080325163751.GA19318@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20080325_170736_717110_67D75DDA) References: <1206459795-18167-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <1206462125.16475.303.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1206462125.16475.303.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:22:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 11:43 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > From: John W. Linville > > > > Otherwise, 'iwconfig wlan0 key off' with no key set results in: > > > > Error for wireless request "Set Encode" (8B2A) : > > SET failed on device wlan0 ; No such file or directory. > > And what is the problem with us telling iwconfig that there was no key? > You should argue for iwconfig ignoring that particular problem, but I > don't think we should do so in the kernel. Why is it a problem? How does it hurt anything? How is it useful to return an error? FWIW, other drivers seem to accept it. I don't see why we need to complain. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com