Hi Johannes,
On 08/11/2016 07:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 17:02 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote:
+static int nl80211_dump_interface_parse(struct sk_buff *skb,
+ struct netlink_callback *cb,
+ int *filter_wiphy)
Wrong indentation :)
Sorry :)
Speaking of indentation, can you point me to a doc of the rules I should
follow?
static int nl80211_dump_interface(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
netlink_callback *cb)
{
int wp_idx = 0;
int if_idx = 0;
int wp_start = cb->args[0];
int if_start = cb->args[1];
+ int filter_wiphy = cb->args[2];
struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev;
struct wireless_dev *wdev;
+ if (!wp_start && !if_start && !filter_wiphy) {
This seems incorrect - you're setting
+ int ret;
+
+ filter_wiphy = -1;
+
+ ret = nl80211_dump_interface_parse(skb, cb,
&filter_wiphy);
it here, but it can take the value 0, so !filter_wiphy seems wrong?
I can confirm that I sanity checked this patch. Both ATTR_WIPHY,
ATTR_WDEV and wildcard dumps seemed to produce expected results.
I noticed you applied this patch. Is there a particular scenario where
it goes wrong or did you convince yourself it is correct?
Regards,
-Denis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
