On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:29 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:38 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > - if (ieee80211_get_morefrag(hdr))
> > > + if (ieee80211_has_morefrags(hdr->frame_control))
> >
> > looks fine to me, though I wonder if we should have
> >
> > ieee80211_has_morefrags(struct 80211hdr)
> > and
> > __ieee80211_has_morefrags(__le16 fc)
> >
> > or something with variants of the functions that do the ->frame_control?
>
> I considered that, but thought it was a small benefit for doubling the
> number of helpers.
>
> I chose the __le16 variant as there is some driver code that checks these
> values in driver-specific structures, so I just left it up to the caller
> to dereference whatever structure the frame control is held in.
>
> But if both sets are wanted, I would suggest:
>
> ieee80211_fc_has_morefrags(__le16 fc);
>
> ieee80211_has_morefrags(struct ieee80211 *hdr)
> {
> return ieee80211_fc_has_morefrags(hdr->frame_control);
> }
>
> Do you think I should add the struct helper(s)?
It looks like you'd be using them in many places, so don't you think it
would be helpful? I don't really care too much.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
