Re: [PATCH 06/10] cfg80211: honor NL80211_RRF_NO_HT40{MINUS,PLUS}

From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
	"luca@coelho.fi" <luca@coelho.fi>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] cfg80211: honor NL80211_RRF_NO_HT40{MINUS,PLUS}
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:29:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1504682981.12380.28.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1504630175.23076.5.camel@intel.com>

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 16:49 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 16:30 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 11:44 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > 
> > > +	regd = get_wiphy_regdom(wiphy);
> > > +	if (regd) {
> > > +		const struct ieee80211_reg_rule *reg_rule =
> > > +			freq_reg_info_regd(MHZ_TO_KHZ(channel-
> > > > center_freq),
> > > 
> > > +					   regd,
> > > MHZ_TO_KHZ(20));
> > > 
> > 
> > This could return an error, how can you be sure it doesn't?
> > 
> 
> Hm... so I guess I could check that it didn't return any error and if
> it did, then flags = 0?
> 
> Something like this? (on top of this patch):
> [snip]

yeah that's obviously the easy thing to do - I just wasn't sure that
you didn't have a reason to believe it could never be an ERR_PTR :)

johannes