Return-path: Received: from mx51.mymxserver.com ([85.199.173.110]:44286 "EHLO mx51.mymxserver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753162AbZIKHgV (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:36:21 -0400 From: Holger Schurig To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: allow scanning on specified frequencies when using wext-compatibility Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:35:47 +0200 Cc: John W Linville , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200909091309.55068.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <1252629664.23427.4.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1252629664.23427.4.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200909110935.47253.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > This is a bit weird -- this way you don't report errors if the > user specified frequencies that don't exist. Couldn't / shouldn't this done in user-space, e.g. after checking IWRANGE. > Also, are you sure that it has to be a frequency as opposed to > a channel number? I'm not totally sure, because there's nowhere any documentation about the exact meanings of fields in "struct iw_freq". My patch for wpa_supplicant's driver_wext.c only put's a frequency there: + req.channel_list[i].m = params->freqs[i] * 100000; + req.channel_list[i].e = 1; + req.channel_list[i].i = i; + req.channel_list[i].flags = 0; But now that you bring this into my mind, I should have looked at another consumer of "struct iw_freq", e.g. I should use cfg80211_wext_freq() like cfg80211_wext_siwfreq() ?!? I'll prepare some patch. -- http://www.holgerschurig.de