From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pl0-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:44985 "EHLO mail-pl0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752010AbeCUPBy (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:01:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 9-v6so3264745ple.11 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC v5 3/9] nl80211: Add CONTROL_PORT_OVER_NL80211 attribute To: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20180313215942.29176-1-denkenz@gmail.com> <20180313215942.29176-4-denkenz@gmail.com> <1521618479.2645.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Denis Kenzior Message-ID: <286ad6b3-479c-0294-b123-7f68b5e6349a@gmail.com> (sfid-20180321_160158_605515_D3794521) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:01:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1521618479.2645.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Johannes, On 03/21/2018 02:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:59 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: >> >> + if (info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_CONTROL_PORT_OVER_NL80211]) { >> + if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SOCKET_OWNER]) >> + return -EINVAL; >> > There might be value in adding GENL_SET_ERR_MSG() calls to new > instances of -EINVAL, but if you don't want to do that now I won't > insist (and perhaps add some when I apply the patches). > Sure, that sounds easy enough. Did you see the TODO comments I added in RFC v5 0/9 message? I need your help figuring out how you want to handle those. Those are pretty esoteric though and would require more surgery. Any chance that we can merge the non-controversial bits of this RFC so that we can get some wider testing and start encouraging non-mac80211 based drivers to support these mechanisms? Regards, -Denis