Return-path: Received: from smtp.rutgers.edu ([128.6.72.243]:16033 "EHLO annwn14.rutgers.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753494AbXH0Xrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:47:51 -0400 From: Michael Wu To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: port of my recent patches to net-2.6.24 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:45:51 -0400 Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless References: <1188027470.9529.5.camel@johannes.berg> In-Reply-To: <1188027470.9529.5.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart108026812.FtPWj39jt0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: <200708271945.55384.flamingice@sourmilk.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --nextPart108026812.FtPWj39jt0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 25 August 2007 03:37, Johannes Berg wrote: > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/net-2.6.24/ > Patch 22: + ap =3D sta_info_get(key->local, key->sdata->u.sta.bssid); How does this work when we're setting a multicast/broadcast key on an AP=20 interface? + list_add(&key->list, &sdata->key_list); Should we be holding the key mutex here? This patch does too many things. If you can split some things out into=20 separate patches, like moving code into key.c, it would be easier to review. Patch 23-29: ACK Thanks, =2DMichael Wu --nextPart108026812.FtPWj39jt0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBG02IzT3Oqt9AH4aERAhZXAKDJA4t3WioVqE0+bbajTp7VeDMYAQCg1qzu tgHEAB++NL/Z+WlvviMZ8LQ= =PpYj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart108026812.FtPWj39jt0-- -: To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org: More majordomo info at http: //vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html