On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 17:09 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > 
> > > +	if (need_offchan && !chan)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > > @@ -2847,10 +2853,14 @@ static int ieee80211_mgmt_tx(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev,
> > >  		rcu_read_lock();
> > >  		chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
> > >  
> > > -		if (chanctx_conf)
> > > -			need_offchan = chan != chanctx_conf->def.chan;
> > > -		else
> > > +		if (chanctx_conf) {
> > > +			need_offchan = chan && (chan != chanctx_conf->def.chan);
> > > +		} else if (!chan) {
> > > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +			goto out_unlock;
> > > +		} else {
> > >  			need_offchan = true;
> > > +		}
> > >  		rcu_read_unlock();
> > 
> > It seems this would be clearer?
> > http://p.sipsolutions.net/b8a03c85f0e8b89f.txt
> 
> Actually, no, I like your version better.

uhm, having one else less looks better..why did you change your mind?
Maybe you version is not entirely equivalent?


-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara