> > It seems to me that this should be per-virtual interface instead of > > per-hardware? I guess ultimately it won't make a difference because the > > RA will be unique but I think we should still keep it per-vif where it > > makes sense. > > > I can pass only vif in all the API i give, and that's something that i > am not sure about since you introduced vif - generally all functions > can get hw just from having the vif, but still there are plenty of > places in the code that i see hw being passed back and forth. is it > just because API compatibility or because something else i need to > consider? Basically I'm thinking that everything that could in theory be per-interface should be getting a vif. Say you have a multi-BSS AP. I don't think it's really legal for a STA to associate to multiple APs at the same time but want to avoid the code falling over when a STA actually does associate to multiple of our virtual BSSes... Maybe that's just unnecessary. > > You actually need to write kerneldoc in two different comments so it can > > be embedded into output properly > > code duplication in comments :-) Yeah, heh, I know. > Gladly! the really basic functioanlity I have already showed in patch > 0/10. I guess you are thinking about something more then that so lets > talk about it in a diffrent thread. i also didn't understand what > header file you mean. Right. I'll try to find some time to resurrect the mac80211 book. Then when I post that we can talk about an 11n chapter. > > Also, should we just call it _irq instead of _irqsafe? I personally > > dislike the rx_irqsafe naming too. > > it is the same as the naming of tx_status_irqsafe and rx_irqsafe. you > want to change this convention? Well I dislike it only because it implies that you can call it from non-irq contexts too, which you shouldn't. But no, I don't feel strongly about it, stick with the _irqsafe you have. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
