From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com ([209.85.219.210]:60833 "EHLO mail-ew0-f210.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751989AbZFSRUv (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:20:51 -0400 Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so2741869ewy.37 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A3BC8EC.6040801@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:20:44 +0100 From: Dave MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Calaby CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, orinoco-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/23] cfg80211: Advertise ciphers via WE according to driver capability References: <1245363695-8289-1-git-send-email-kilroyd@googlemail.com> <1245363695-8289-3-git-send-email-kilroyd@googlemail.com> <646765f40906181638j39d8e8eex8ead9d856b5f2548@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <646765f40906181638j39d8e8eex8ead9d856b5f2548@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Julian Calaby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:21, David Kilroy wrote: >> Signed-off-by: David Kilroy >> Acked-by: Johannes Berg >> --- >> net/wireless/wext-compat.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> index 9e56f35..7dbe6c6 100644 >> --- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> +++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c >> @@ -204,8 +204,19 @@ int cfg80211_wext_giwrange(struct net_device *dev, >> range->avg_qual.noise = range->max_qual.noise / 2; >> range->avg_qual.updated = range->max_qual.updated; >> >> - range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 | >> - IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP; >> + range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2; > > Should this should go into the for loop too, like how patch 5 works? Err... patch 5 moves this line into the for loop. I moved these in separate patches because: * Indicating available ciphers based on cipher capability is obviously correct. * Indicating WPA/WPA2 based on cipher capability is not obviously correct - and we might want the drivers to indicate this explicitly. * The latter patch can be NACK'd without affecting the former, or the rest of the series (well, apart from patch 22). As it happens, no-one has objected (yet). Apologies if I've completely misunderstood you. Thanks, Dave.