On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:53:12PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 14:46 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > Well, I think the way that will be simplest with the fewest code changes > > > > would be to use a tx control flag. Of course then we've gobbled up one > > > > of the last available flags. > > > > > > Let's do that anyway then. I still think we need to do the > > > PS/scan/offchannel thing I described in another mail anyway, so that'd > > > be a better interim step than changing all the prototypes... > > > > When I originally looked at using a tx control flag I didn't think that > > using IEEE80211_TX_CTL_TX_OFFCHAN would work, but now I'm not sure why. > > Is there any reason not to do this? > > I guess you'd have to pre-assign the queue, since the code in > ieee80211_tx() might skip that part, but that seems easy enough. Other > than that, a driver that checks IEEE80211_TX_CTL_TX_OFFCHAN might treat > that frame specially, but OTOH the only drivers using it right now are > ours and TI's and they both have HW scan/roc, so your code never > executes. What a future driver might do is anyone's guess... All right, I decided to go ahead with the new flag since what I need it to do is somewhat incongruous with what IEEE80211_TX_CTL_TX_OFFCHAN indicates. New patches will follow. Seth -- 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
