On Tuesday 13 May 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 14:34 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > All interfaces should set the IEEE80211_TXPD_REQ_TX_STATUS flag for all TX frames > > which will force the master interface to set the IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS > > flag. This in turn will allow drivers to check for that flag before reporting > > the TX status to mac80211. > > > > This is very usefull when frames (like beacons, RTS and CTS-to-self) should not > > be reported back to mac80211. Later we could add more extensive checks to > > exclude more frames from being reported, or let mac80211 decide if it wants > > the frame for status reporting or not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/tx.c b/net/mac80211/tx.c > > index f35eaea..0024892 100644 > > --- a/net/mac80211/tx.c > > +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c > > @@ -1617,6 +1617,9 @@ int ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, > > if (ethertype == ETH_P_PAE) > > pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_EAPOL_FRAME; > > > > + /* Interfaces should always request a status report */ > > + pkt_data->flags |= IEEE80211_TXPD_REQ_TX_STATUS; > > + > > What about monitor interfaces/injection? Do they already set it? No, should they? > Other than that, looks good to me, as long as you're aware that in the > future this might be more dynamic and don't rely on it too much for > internal housekeeping (but you seem to be according to your changelog > entry) :) Well it shouldn't matter if it will become more flexible, what I am looking for is making the flag actually mean something for drivers. ;) We could even make it so that the mac80211 tx_status handler will ignore the frame when the flag is set so drivers won't have to look at it at all. Ivo -- 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
