Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.63.242]:42978 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752389AbeEGUGp (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2018 16:06:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1525723602.1080.0.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20180507_220648_181452_7F370D04) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mesh: don't process mesh channel switch unless csa ie provided From: Johannes Berg To: Peter Oh , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 22:06:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <81cf6620-d7f6-50f7-23c5-e1ba693f2907@bowerswilkins.com> References: <1524857196-29399-1-git-send-email-peter.oh@bowerswilkins.com> <1525722286.22388.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> <81cf6620-d7f6-50f7-23c5-e1ba693f2907@bowerswilkins.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 13:04 -0700, Peter Oh wrote: > > On 05/07/2018 12:44 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 12:26 -0700, peter.oh@bowerswilkins.com wrote: > > > From: Peter Oh > > > > > > There is no meaning to call ieee80211_mesh_process_chnswitch > > > without CSA IE provided, since the function will always return error. > > > > I'm not convinced, an extended channel switch element might be present > > instead? > > I expected the comment. Yes, extended channel switch element could be > present instead of channel switch element which I missed to take care > of. So you can ignore the patch for now and I'll get back with right > patch for it. Heh. Well, but then why bother at all? I mean, the inner function will do the check and fail, and nothing will happen, so why bother? johannes