On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:16 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > 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? Oh ok. Can't say I really care :) 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
