> + /*
> + * allow only one legacy scheduled scan if user-space
> + * does not indicate multiple scheduled scan support.
> + */
> + if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SCHED_SCAN_MULTI] &&
> + cfg80211_legacy_sched_scan_active(rdev))
> return -EINPROGRESS;
That probably doesn't go far enough - if legacy one is active then we
probably shouldn't allow a new MULTI one either (or abandon the legacy
one) so that older userspace doesn't get confused with multiple
notifications from sched scans it didn't start.
> + if (rdev->sched_scan_req_count == rdev->wiphy.max_sched_scan_reqs)
> + return -ENOSPC;
Do we really want to do the double-accounting, just to avoid counting
the list length here?
> + /* leave request id zero for legacy request */
why? The ID would be ignored, so why special-case it?
> +static void cfg80211_del_sched_scan_req(struct
> cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
> + struct
> cfg80211_sched_scan_request *req)
> +{
> + list_del_rcu(&req->list);
> + kfree_rcu(req, rcu_head);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + rdev->sched_scan_req_count--;
> +}
That's bogus - either you use kfree_rcu() or synchronize_rcu() (the
former is much better); combining both makes no sense.
> +bool cfg80211_legacy_sched_scan_active(struct
> cfg80211_registered_device *rdev)
> +{
> + struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request *req;
> +
> + req = list_first_or_null_rcu(&rdev->sched_scan_req_list,
> + struct
> cfg80211_sched_scan_request, list);
> + /* request id 0 indicates legacy request in progress */
> + return req && !req->reqid;
> +}
Ok, fair enough.
johannes
