Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:63995 "EHLO mail-bk0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932175Ab3FRMFp (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:05:45 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jc3so1739052bkc.14 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:05:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1371548362.8318.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <1371528422-20710-1-git-send-email-yeohchunyeow@gmail.com> <1371548362.8318.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:05:44 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20130618_140557_163339_E2899D5D) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: allow key deletion for mesh interface From: Yeoh Chun-Yeow To: Johannes Berg Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , John Linville , "devel@lists.open80211s.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > I don't see that this actually changes anything. The mesh sdata will > have a NULL bss pointer, so the second condition in sta_info_get_bss() > can't be true. > > Therefore, only the first condition can ever be considered, which is > exactly the same as sta_info_get(), no? Yes. My current patch does not make sense since I see no difference calling sta_info_get or sta_info_get_bss in my case. The same applies to ieee80211_add_key. --- Chun-Yeow