On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:47 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > Johannes: I have a couple of comments/questions for you related to these > > patches. > > > > First, in the patches I've added an offchan_tx_ok argument to the tx > > operations, but this seems a little awkward to me since it has to be > > propogated down through a fairly deep call stack. The alternative idea > > that occurred to me is to use a tx control flag, but that seems to be > > pretty crowded. Any thoughts? > > Maybe you can bypass by using a flag in struct ieee80211_tx_data, so > only the first few functions in the call chain need the argument? > Otherwise, I guess adding a flag should be OK. I know it's crowded, but > if we really run out I guess we could move all the internal flags etc. > wholesale ... Ok no that was wrong ... we can't do that because many flags need to survive queueing. johannes -- 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
