On 23 May 2014 10:58, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:01 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > >> So.. which patch are we going forward with? Luca's or mine? Either way >> is fine with me as long as we reach a conclusion :-) > > Looks like both are missing some things? Luca's doesn't have tracing, > and supports just a single interface (which you'll not like :) ) but > personally I liked the struct API a bit better than multiple double > pointer arrays you had. Well, the 'single interface' problem isn't even a thing. Luca just happens to rework ieee80211_vif_use_reserved_ context() in one go. My patch simply adds the new op since the old/single-vif channel csa code gets thrown out later anyway. I suppose we can just split Luca's patch and drop the vif_use_reserved_context() part (as well as IEEE80211_HW_CHANGE_RUNNING_CHANCTX flag removal) as it will get overwritten by my patches later anyway? Michał -- 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
