From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:19414 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750973AbZBXC25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:28:57 -0500 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.107]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:56 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:12 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Johannes Berg CC: Luis Rodriguez , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] cfg80211: add a workqueue for regulatory processing Message-ID: <20090224022812.GJ4264@tesla> (sfid-20090224_032900_776678_41B35B05) References: <1235192673-6314-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1235440617.4455.47.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1235440617.4455.47.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:56:57PM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 00:04 -0500, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I found one bug in my v5 series on the workqueue patch -- I was > > accessing wiphy->custom_regulatory without first checking if the > > wiphy existed, in case there are any conflicts I am rebasing the > > other patches and just sending a new version 6 series. > > Did anything else significantly change? I gave it a quick look and it > seems fine. Nope, just one line where I forgot to check for wiphy first before checking for wiphy->custom_regulatory. Luis