On Monday 15 October 2007 17:47:16 Johannes Berg wrote: > > another solution i thought of was signalling the mac80211 layer that we > > need padding which could then just adjust it's headerlen. but then > > different drivers might need different padding in different places (i > > don't know?). what do you think of this approach? > > That could be worthwhile, though the headerlen calculation is called > very very often and adding another branch into it could very well impact > performance worse than doing the memmove. now you confuse me. this is exactly what i attempted with the previous patch, which you didn't like... unfortunately it's not possible to implement it there as a zero copy solution, because ieee80211_rx_h_remove_qos_control messes with the header itself. bruno - 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
