Message-ID: <1338534832.4884.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120601_091405_631576_0B8A3481)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: Fix a WARNING in suspend/resume with IBSS
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Rodriguez Luis <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:13:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4FC86AB4.9020602@qca.qualcomm.com>
References: <1338532779-4621-1-git-send-email-mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
		 (sfid-20120601_083956_399882_A3D65832) <1338533070.4884.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
	 <4FC86AB4.9020602@qca.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:39 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> On Friday 01 June 2012 12:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:09 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> >> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
> >>
> >> In ath9k we make sure the following two things
> >> *if the first interface is ADHOC we cannot have any other interface.
> >> *we cannot add an ADHOC interface if there is already an interface
> >> is present.
> >
> >> -	if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC) ||
> >> -	    ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&
> >> -	     sc->nvifs>  0)) {
> >> -		ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other"
> >> -			" interfaces already exist.\n");
> >> +	if ((ah->opmode == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&  (sc->nvifs>  0)) {
> >> +		ath_err(common, "Cannot create any other interface when an ADHOC interface already exists.\n");
> >> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	if ((vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)&&  (sc->nvifs>  0)) {
> >> +		ath_err(common, "Cannot create ADHOC interface when other interfaces already exist.\n");
> >
> > You could just remove the entire check since the interface combinations
> > you advertise don't allow it, I think? Or just fix those
> > combinations :-)
> 
> i did not check this before, thanks a lot for your inputs. will send a 
> proper v2 after checking this out.

If this is needed for stable, you might want to keep this patch & send
another one to remove it.

johannes