On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 13:26 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >> The following patch adds NL80211_CMD_GET_MPP as a new nl80211 command that >> allows to query the content of the 'mesh proxy path' table of mac80211s via >> 'get' or 'dump' operation. > > For review and merging, and to make it more obvious to you as well when > writing commit logs/documentation/etc I'd prefer if you'd split this up > into separate cfg80211 and mac80211 patches. Just to make sure I got the split right... First patch to define the two new cfg80211_ops and the necessary nl80211/tracing helper functions, second patch that implements get_mpp() and dump_mpp() functions? >> + int (*get_mpp)(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev, >> + u8 *dst, u8 *mpp, struct mpath_info *pinfo); >> + int (*dump_mpp)(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev, >> + int idx, u8 *dst, u8 *mpp, >> + struct mpath_info *pinfo); > > Should dst/mpp be const? Or are those output parameters? Yes, similar to the get_mpath/dump_mpath cfg80211_ops these are output parameters. Same thing for pinfo. > Should it really be mpath_info? I thought this was some other thing? > Probably just need more documentation :) mpath and mpp use the same storage object (struct mesh_path), so I reused the mpath_info struct. As far as I can see its just a "transfer object" between for cfg80211 that temporarily stores data from the cfg80211_ops for nl80211 messages. Shall I create a new struct for the two new cfg80211_ops? See -- 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
