[PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[pat-lkml]

Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
and add #define for libnl-1.1.

Signed-off-by: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>
---

I'm not too proud to admit that I did proofread this, twice, and still
missed changing iw to crda in the commit message.

In the future, should I keep pushing these sorts of patches, or should
we back them out and wait for a 'release' of libnl-2.0 and push them all
in then?

diff --git a/crda.c b/crda.c
index afc5df1..f2c471f 100644
--- a/crda.c
+++ b/crda.c
@@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ static inline int __genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(struct
nl_handle *h, struct nl_cache *
 }

 #define genl_ctrl_alloc_cache __genl_ctrl_alloc_cache
+#define nl_sock nl_handle
 #endif /* CONFIG_LIBNL20 */

 struct nl80211_state {
-	struct nl_handle *nl_handle;
+	struct nl_sock *nl_sock;
 	struct nl_cache *nl_cache;
 	struct genl_family *nl80211;
 };
@@ -55,22 +56,22 @@ static int nl80211_init(struct nl80211_state *state)
 {
 	int err;

-	state->nl_handle = nl_socket_alloc();
-	if (!state->nl_handle) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate netlink handle.\n");
+	state->nl_sock = nl_socket_alloc();
+	if (!state->nl_sock) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate netlink sock.\n");
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}

-	if (genl_connect(state->nl_handle)) {
+	if (genl_connect(state->nl_sock)) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to connect to generic netlink.\n");
 		err = -ENOLINK;
-		goto out_handle_destroy;
+		goto out_sock_destroy;
 	}

-	if (genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(state->nl_handle, &state->nl_cache)) {
+	if (genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(state->nl_sock, &state->nl_cache)) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate generic netlink cache.\n");
 		err = -ENOMEM;
-		goto out_handle_destroy;
+		goto out_sock_destroy;
 	}

 	state->nl80211 = genl_ctrl_search_by_name(state->nl_cache, "nl80211");
@@ -84,8 +85,8 @@ static int nl80211_init(struct nl80211_state *state)

  out_cache_free:
 	nl_cache_free(state->nl_cache);
- out_handle_destroy:
-	nl_socket_free(state->nl_handle);
+ out_sock_destroy:
+	nl_socket_free(state->nl_sock);
 	return err;
 }

@@ -93,7 +94,7 @@ static void nl80211_cleanup(struct nl80211_state *state)
 {
 	genl_family_put(state->nl80211);
 	nl_cache_free(state->nl_cache);
-	nl_socket_free(state->nl_handle);
+	nl_socket_free(state->nl_sock);
 }

 static int reg_handler(struct nl_msg __attribute__((unused)) *msg,
@@ -294,7 +295,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	if (!cb)
 		goto cb_out;

-	r = nl_send_auto_complete(nlstate.nl_handle, msg);
+	r = nl_send_auto_complete(nlstate.nl_sock, msg);

 	if (r < 0) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to send regulatory request: %d\n", r);
@@ -306,7 +307,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	nl_cb_err(cb, NL_CB_CUSTOM, error_handler, NULL);

 	if (!finished) {
-		r = nl_wait_for_ack(nlstate.nl_handle);
+		r = nl_wait_for_ack(nlstate.nl_sock);
 		if (r < 0) {
 			fprintf(stderr, "Failed to set regulatory domain: "
 				"%d\n", r);

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
> and add #define for libnl-1.1.

But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too:
#define nl_handle nl_sock

you just need to include the right headers, no?

johannes

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

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[pat-lkml]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
>> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
>> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
> 
> But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too:
> #define nl_handle nl_sock
> 
> you just need to include the right headers, no?
> 
> johannes

dunno.... but I can't find it:

libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r
libnl $ git pull
Already up-to-date.

Pat

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:21 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
> >> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
> >> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
> > 
> > But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too:
> > #define nl_handle nl_sock
> > 
> > you just need to include the right headers, no?
> > 
> > johannes
> 
> dunno.... but I can't find it:
> 
> libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r
> libnl $ git pull
> Already up-to-date.

Ah. Grr. Just recently removed.

johannes

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

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[pat-lkml]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:21 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
>> Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:44 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:
>>>> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
>>>> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
>>> But libnl-2.0 comes with a define too:
>>> #define nl_handle nl_sock
>>>
>>> you just need to include the right headers, no?
>>>
>>> johannes
>> dunno.... but I can't find it:
>>
>> libnl $ egrep "#define nl_handle" * -r
>> libnl $ git pull
>> Already up-to-date.
> 
> Ah. Grr. Just recently removed.
> 
> johannes

Which leads back around to my question, should I continue pushing
patches like this your way (after making sure the right patch is on the
right e-mail with the right description), or do we want to wait and I'll
just maintain the patches outside of git, and push them once libnl-2.0
hits?  On one hand, it makes testing both versions easier, on the other,
it makes a lot of little 'fix' commits like this.  I have no issues
maintaining these sorts of patches, but I don't want to do it if you
don't want them.

Pat

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:44:08PM -0800, pat-lkml wrote:
> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>
> ---
> 
> I'm not too proud to admit that I did proofread this, twice, and still
> missed changing iw to crda in the commit message.
> 
> In the future, should I keep pushing these sorts of patches, or should
> we back them out and wait for a 'release' of libnl-2.0 and push them all
> in then?

I'll gladly take them, sure, actually thanks!

  Luis

Re: [PATCH resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:39 -0500, pat-lkml wrote:

> Which leads back around to my question, should I continue pushing
> patches like this your way (after making sure the right patch is on the
> right e-mail with the right description), 

Heh :) Also make sure your patch isn't line-wrapped next time, please.
The iw resend was line-wrapped.

> or do we want to wait and I'll
> just maintain the patches outside of git, and push them once libnl-2.0
> hits?  On one hand, it makes testing both versions easier, on the other,
> it makes a lot of little 'fix' commits like this.  I have no issues
> maintaining these sorts of patches, but I don't want to do it if you
> don't want them.

No, it's fine, I've committed this now, thanks. I had just thought it
ought to work, based on testing with git snapshot a couple of weeks
ago...

Not that libnl-2.0 compiles cleanly on my system...

johannes

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

[patch resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[pat-lkml]

Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
and add #define for libnl-1.1.

Signed-off-by: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>

---
resent fixing whitespace errors in last repost.

diff --git a/crda.c b/crda.c
index afc5df1..f2c471f 100644
--- a/crda.c
+++ b/crda.c
@@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ static inline int __genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(struct
nl_handle *h, struct nl_cache *
 }

 #define genl_ctrl_alloc_cache __genl_ctrl_alloc_cache
+#define nl_sock nl_handle
 #endif /* CONFIG_LIBNL20 */

 struct nl80211_state {
-	struct nl_handle *nl_handle;
+	struct nl_sock *nl_sock;
 	struct nl_cache *nl_cache;
 	struct genl_family *nl80211;
 };
@@ -55,22 +56,22 @@ static int nl80211_init(struct nl80211_state *state)
 {
 	int err;

-	state->nl_handle = nl_socket_alloc();
-	if (!state->nl_handle) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate netlink handle.\n");
+	state->nl_sock = nl_socket_alloc();
+	if (!state->nl_sock) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate netlink sock.\n");
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}

-	if (genl_connect(state->nl_handle)) {
+	if (genl_connect(state->nl_sock)) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to connect to generic netlink.\n");
 		err = -ENOLINK;
-		goto out_handle_destroy;
+		goto out_sock_destroy;
 	}

-	if (genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(state->nl_handle, &state->nl_cache)) {
+	if (genl_ctrl_alloc_cache(state->nl_sock, &state->nl_cache)) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate generic netlink cache.\n");
 		err = -ENOMEM;
-		goto out_handle_destroy;
+		goto out_sock_destroy;
 	}

 	state->nl80211 = genl_ctrl_search_by_name(state->nl_cache, "nl80211");
@@ -84,8 +85,8 @@ static int nl80211_init(struct nl80211_state *state)

  out_cache_free:
 	nl_cache_free(state->nl_cache);
- out_handle_destroy:
-	nl_socket_free(state->nl_handle);
+ out_sock_destroy:
+	nl_socket_free(state->nl_sock);
 	return err;
 }

@@ -93,7 +94,7 @@ static void nl80211_cleanup(struct nl80211_state *state)
 {
 	genl_family_put(state->nl80211);
 	nl_cache_free(state->nl_cache);
-	nl_socket_free(state->nl_handle);
+	nl_socket_free(state->nl_sock);
 }

 static int reg_handler(struct nl_msg __attribute__((unused)) *msg,
@@ -294,7 +295,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	if (!cb)
 		goto cb_out;

-	r = nl_send_auto_complete(nlstate.nl_handle, msg);
+	r = nl_send_auto_complete(nlstate.nl_sock, msg);

 	if (r < 0) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to send regulatory request: %d\n", r);
@@ -306,7 +307,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	nl_cb_err(cb, NL_CB_CUSTOM, error_handler, NULL);

 	if (!finished) {
-		r = nl_wait_for_ack(nlstate.nl_handle);
+		r = nl_wait_for_ack(nlstate.nl_sock);
 		if (r < 0) {
 			fprintf(stderr, "Failed to set regulatory domain: "
 				"%d\n", r);

Re: [patch resend] crda: rename nl_handle to nl_sock for libnl-2.0

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 01:52:19PM -0800, pat-lkml wrote:
> Upstream has renamed nl_handle to nl_sock.  Update crda to the new names
> and add #define for libnl-1.1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>

Applied, thanks!

  Luis