Hello,
Sorry. I missed your previous email. I agree that your solution is
better and cleaner.
Do you want me to submit a new patch?
Sincerely,
Bertold Van den Bergh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 11:09 +0200, Johannes
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 21:17 +0200, Bertold Van den Bergh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry. I missed your previous email. I agree that your solution is
> better and cleaner.
>
> Do you want me to submit a new patch?
>
Yes, please do.
Thanks,
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 11:09 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 15:38 +0200, Bertold Van den Bergh wrote:
> > The current implementation in ocb.c can cause a kernel oops when
> > the
> > interface is up, but no ocb has been joined. When data is received
> > with the broadcast
On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 15:38 +0200, Bertold Van den Bergh wrote:
The current implementation in ocb.c can cause a kernel oops when the
interface is up, but no ocb has been joined. When data is received
with the broadcast BSSID rx_no_sta is called. This function uses
uninitialized variables
The current implementation in ocb.c can cause a kernel oops when the
interface is up, but no ocb has been joined. When data is received
with the broadcast BSSID rx_no_sta is called. This function uses
uninitialized variables because the join function has not yet been used.
Signed-off-by: Bertold