On Sunday 17 February 2008 18:11:43 Johannes Berg wrote: > Looks good, thanks for your patience. I have two minor comments still, > sorry for the lack of focus in earlier review. > > > + } else if (local && local->ops && local->ops->get_tsf) > > + /* second best option: get current TSF */ > > + rx_timestamp = local->ops->get_tsf(local_to_hw(local)); > > This is assuming that we don't manage to process the frame within 192 > usecs. I guess that will be true since we defer it to a tasklet, but do > we want to bet on it in the future or should we simply widen the window > where the merge *won't* happen because the driver doesn't provide enough > info and also add the 24 bytes offset here? sorry, i was to fast in agreeing ;) on a second thought i realized that we don't need to worry about that: since we get to handle the frame after it was received *completely*, we can be sure that the current time returned by get_tsf() is later than the time when byte 24 was received. so no need for adding the offset. i'll rebase the unmodified patch series and resend it. bruno - 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
