On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 18:12 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:22:46 -0500 > > > @@ -1040,6 +1049,16 @@ struct iw_range > > * because each entry contain its channel index */ > > > > __u32 enc_capa; /* IW_ENC_CAPA_* bit field */ > > + > > + /* Do *NOT* use those fields, they are just used as padding to get > > + * proper alignement with user space */ > > + __s32 reserved1; > > + __s32 reserved2; > > + __u16 reserved3; > > + __s32 reserved4; > > + __u32 reserved5; > > + > > + __u32 scan_capa; /* IW_SCAN_CAPA_* bit field */ > > }; > > > > /* > > Major NACK. These datastructure usages are complete wrong, and > we have to stop spreading this problem instead of continuing on > with it as if it's OK. There's not too much we can do here. We need a better way to support driver/card capabilities in WEXT right _now_, in parallel with cfg80211/nl80211. The other alternative here is to have a 64-bit generic capabilities field-to-end-all-fields and add more bitfield position constants to that without extending the structure any more. Is there a better way you'd propose to do this _in_WEXT_? I don't really forsee any more extending of this structure, since I think scan capabilities are the last thing we really need to know about. Dan - 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
