On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:31 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > +static inline int ieee80211_data_has_qos(__le16 fc)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * mask with QOS_DATA rather than IEEE80211_FCTL_STYPE as we just need
> > > + * to check the one bit
> > > + */
> > > + return (fc &
> > > + cpu_to_le16(IEEE80211_FCTL_FTYPE | IEEE80211_STYPE_QOS_DATA)) ==
> > > + cpu_to_le16(IEEE80211_FTYPE_DATA | IEEE80211_STYPE_QOS_DATA);
> > > +}
> >
> > Shouldn't that rather be _is_qos_data?
> >
>
> I don't think so....I was trying to keep it so _is_ meant an exact comparison and
> _has_ was checking the presence of particular bits.
>
> As this helper only checks for the one bit being set, I chose _has_.
Hmm. As far as I can tell, it checks that the frame is a QoS controlled
data frame. Hence, it explicitly checks that it _is_ a data frame and
_has_ the QoS bit, but in 802.11 lingo I think that means it _is_ a
"data+qos" frame.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
