Return-path: Received: from mx51.mymxserver.com ([85.199.173.110]:64699 "EHLO mx51.mymxserver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754226AbZIWHQe (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:16:34 -0400 From: Holger Schurig To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: Comparison of wpa_supplicant with -Dnl80211 and -Dwext, WEP and WPA Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:15:35 +0200 Cc: hostap@lists.shmoo.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200909221118.04569.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <200909221258.44921.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <1253689291.4458.25.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1253689291.4458.25.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200909230915.35312.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 23 September 2009 09:01:31 Johannes Berg wrote: > Because the scan request contains info on how to do the scan. I know. I sent another mail where I said the traceback was correct, but not my conclusion: I confused cfg80211_wext_siwscan() and cfg80211_wext_giwscan(). I thougth the return -EBUSY is in cfg80211_wext_giwscan(). That it is in cfg80211_wext_siwscan() makes perfect sense. -- http://www.holgerschurig.de