linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <43e72e890809101518k35047191hac8b796383a5638@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:18:59 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>
To:	"Marcel Holtmann" <holtmann@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linville@...driver.com, johannes@...solutions.net,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Marcel Holtmann
<holtmann@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
>> > While reading through it, I came to think about regulatory_hint(). So is
>> > there a use case where would give it the alpha2 code and the domain
>> > itself at the same time? If not, then it would make more sense to split
>> > this into two functions.
>>
>> Nope, you either pass an alpha2 or an rd domain which is built by you
>> (and in that rd structure you can set the alpha2 to your iso3166
>> alpha2 or "99" if unknown).
>>
>> > Maybe something regulatory_alpha2_hint() and
>> > regulatory_domain_hint(). Just a thought.
>>
>> That's how I had it originally but decided to condense it to one
>> routine since as you could see they pretty much do the same thing
>> except the case where the rd is provided it calls set_regdom().
>> Setting it back to use two routines if fine by me too. What is better?
>> Can we just get this merged and then we can flip it around if
>> necessary? :) I'm tired of carrying this around.
>
> my take on this is that if from an API perspective you can only use one
> parameter or the other, then it should be two functions.

This is reasonable, I'll respin, yet once again...

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/