On 2016-08-11 15:02, Eduardo Abinader wrote: > On 11.08.2016 14:16, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2016-08-11 14:02, Eduardo Abinader wrote: >>> When netifd failed to load a valid configuration, after an invalid one, >>> it was not possible to setup the wireless device. This patch >>> aims to track this situation and behave acordingly, by keeping >>> track of failed setup without affecting autostart behavior. Also >>> block the restart of the wdev, when not applied. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Abinader <eduardoabina...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> wireless.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> wireless.h | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/wireless.c b/wireless.c >>> index 34dd328..1212a77 100644 >>> --- a/wireless.c >>> +++ b/wireless.c >>> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ __wireless_device_set_up(struct wireless_device *wdev) >>> if (wdev->disabled) >>> return; >>> >>> - if (wdev->state != IFS_DOWN || config_init) >>> + if ((wdev->config_state != IFC_RELOAD) && (wdev->state != IFS_DOWN || >>> config_init)) >>> return; >>> >>> free(wdev->prev_config); >> This part looks like it should be dropped now. >> > > Based on your next comment, right? I mean, replace by the proper > placement of earlier return of __wireless_device_set_up on > reload/autostart/retry_setup, ok? Yes.
>>> @@ -681,6 +693,7 @@ wireless_device_create(struct wireless_driver *drv, >>> const char *name, struct blo >>> wdev->config_state = IFC_NORMAL; >>> wdev->name = strcpy(name_buf, name); >>> wdev->config = data; >>> + wdev->retry_setup_failed = false; >>> wdev->config_autostart = true; >>> wdev->autostart = wdev->config_autostart; >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wdev->script_proc); >>> @@ -991,6 +1004,7 @@ wireless_start_pending(void) >>> struct wireless_device *wdev; >>> >>> vlist_for_each_element(&wireless_devices, wdev, node) >>> - if (wdev->autostart) >>> + if (wdev->autostart && wdev->state == IFS_DOWN) >> Why did you make this change? >> > > To avoid settinp up wdev while a teardown is still in progress, I > noticed the previous hostapd instance was still running, so it seems > more appropriate to defer it to wireless_device_check_script_tasks. > Should it be a separate patch? I think the issue you're trying to work around here is actually introduced by that other change above that I suggested removing. If that's the case, you can drop this one as well. - Felix _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
