> Well, the way the other functions of the same type:
>
> ieee80211_ctl_is_ack
> ieee80211_mgmt_is_beacon
>
> check not only that the ftype is exactly ctl/mgmt and that it is of
> stype ack/beacon.
Hah. Well, I think they should probably be named
ieee80211_is_ctl_ack/is_mgmt_beacon then, or just shorter
_is_ack/_is_beacon (since everybody knows ack are ctl and beacon are
mgmt.)
> I chose ieee80211_data_has_qos because it checks
> the ftype _is_ data _and_ that it _has_ qos included. I think my
> naming is more consistent with this.
>
> Do you still think it should be changed?
I think you're looking at the bits too much. If you look at 802.11-2007,
Table 7-1, you'll notice that all frames that have data ftype and the
"QoS bit" set in the subtype are actually data+qos frames, just with
extra functionality added onto them by the other stype bits.
Hence, I do think it should be changed, we're more interested in the
semantic meaning ("this is a data+QoS [possibly +stuff] frame") rather
than the bitwise meaning ("this is a data frame which has some QoS bit
set"). I guess the correct way would be to say "this is data frame which
has QoS information" which we'd have to express as "_is_data_has_qos" or
something, no?
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
