Johannes Berg napsal(a): > On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 15:08 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> + if (control->flags & IEEE80211_TXCTL_REQ_TX_STATUS) >> + pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_REQ_TX_STATUS; >> + if (control->flags & IEEE80211_TXCTL_DO_NOT_ENCRYPT) >> + pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_DO_NOT_ENCRYPT; >> + if (control->flags & IEEE80211_TXCTL_REQUEUE) >> + pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_REQUEUE; >> + if (control->type == IEEE80211_IF_TYPE_MGMT) >> + pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_MGMT_IFACE; > > This looks weird. Can't we just use the same flags? I don't think, that it must be subset one of each another in the future. (This is why I created yet another bits defined). Do we still want the same flags? -- Jiri Slaby (jirislaby@xxxxxxxxx) Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University - 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
