Re: [PATCH 2/2] ath5k: Adjust opmode when interfaces are removed.

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 10/08/2010 11:03 AM, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:43 PM,<greearb@candelatech.com>  wrote:
>> @@ -558,6 +577,7 @@ void ath5k_update_bssid_mask(struct ath5k_softc *sc, struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
>>         memset(&iter_data.mask, 0xff, ETH_ALEN);
>>         iter_data.found_active = false;
>>         iter_data.need_set_hw_addr = true;
>> +       iter_data.opmode = NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED;
>>
>>         if (vif)
>>                 ath_vif_iter(&iter_data, vif->addr, vif);
>> @@ -567,6 +587,11 @@ void ath5k_update_bssid_mask(struct ath5k_softc *sc, struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
>>                                                    &iter_data);
>>         memcpy(sc->bssidmask, iter_data.mask, ETH_ALEN);
>>
>> +       if (update_opmode&&  sc->opmode != iter_data.opmode) {
>> +               sc->opmode = iter_data.opmode;
>> +               ath_do_set_opmode(sc);
>> +       }
>> +
>
> Should we really couple updating bssid mask and configuring
> the opmode?  Generally, I dislike adding boolean flags to
> functions because it's hard to figure out from the callsite
> what is happening (you have to go back to the prototype), and
> it usually indicates that the abstraction is a little broken.

Well, we need to do the iteration over all VIFS to figure out what to set this
too.  Seems doing one iteration v/s doing two is worth the
extra flag?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com