From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6]: nl80211: Eliminate reference to BUS_ID_SIZE.
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:33:18 +0200
Message-ID: <1243503198.16631.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20090526.213959.50107146.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <1243495643.16631.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090528.010830.45004716.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, greg@kroah.com,
	johannes@sipsolutions.net
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:33088 "EHLO
	mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754384AbZE1Jdp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 28 May 2009 05:33:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090528.010830.45004716.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Dave,

> >> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static int get_drv_dev_by_info_ifindex(struct nlattr **attrs,
> >>  static struct nla_policy nl80211_policy[NL80211_ATTR_MAX+1] __read_mostly = {
> >>  	[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> >>  	[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_NAME] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING,
> >> -				      .len = BUS_ID_SIZE-1 },
> >> +				      .len = 20-1 },
> >>  	[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_TXQ_PARAMS] = { .type = NLA_NESTED },
> >>  	[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_FREQ] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> >>  	[NL80211_ATTR_WIPHY_CHANNEL_TYPE] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > 
> > this patch is actually wrong.
> 
> It cannot be right or wrong, it is merely replacing an existing value
> with the constant equivalent.  It is a change which does absolutely
> nothing.

okay, fair enough. It was required when BUS_ID_SIZE was limited and with
the removal of that, the length limitation here should be also removed.

> > You should remove the .len value all together since the phy name has
> > no limit anymore and so shouldn't the netlink API.
> 
> Anyone is free to make that improvement.  But that's now what
> I am trying to accomplish here.

That is again fair enough, but you could just go ahead and remove it ;)

Regards

Marcel