Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 12:14 +0100, Andy Green wrote:
+ static const u8 radiotap_entry_sizes[] = {
+ 8, /* IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_TSFT */
+ 1, /* IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FLAGS */
[...]
I'd prefer C99 style for this.
Shocked that stuff from as late as 1999 is allowed. I normally use //
myself, I was making a special effort.
Oh, dang, that was ambiguous. I was thinking
static const u8 radiotap_entry_sizes[] = {
[IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_TSFT] = 8,
...
Ha, well I will fix that up then. I couldn't really understand how the
coding style that insists to turn code into 80-col Bonsai Kittens can
also allow //.
The idea here is to synthesize an rx packet later after the tx has
happened, reflecting the tx status back to userspace that way (if he
elects to listen out for them)?
Yeah. Michael Wu says we don't need the magic cookie though.
I missed this conversation evidently, didn't find it just now either.
In case the plan is to block the thread doing the injection until the
packet has gone out and is retired and can return an "acknowledged"
status direct to the send()er, throughput is an issue.
-Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
