On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 11:11 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > I started wondering -- is there a reason to modify the entire TX path? > > Could we maybe bypass it instead and call the driver's TX op almost > > directly? The frames in question don't really need much TX handling, the > > only thing that might be relevant _could_ be rate control but even that > > I'd argue isn't really needed, just using rate_control_send_low() should > > be ok (by setting IEEE80211_TX_CTL_USE_MINRATE it will always return > > true). For the null data packets the sta pointer is also obvious, the AP > > station (BSSID) ... we don't need any of the extra monitor/whatever > > handling either. > > > > That might be simpler overall? > > Okay, I'll take a look at this. > > Another option that might simplify things a bit would be to use a > ieee80211_tx_data flag. If I added another interface into tx.c for > offchannel frames then the offchan argument would only be needed for > ieee80211_xmit() and ieee80211_tx(). Though it would be nice to avoid > adding an argument to ieee80211_xmit(). Oh, I forgot all about ROC and off-channel frames there, but those are public action frames (only?) so the same applies with min-rate etc. Overall I'm not sure. On the one hand that might make the code changes simpler, on the other it might make the code more complex? 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
