On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:34 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 15-2-2017 11:34, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > On 15-2-2017 10:48, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 10:36 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure what to do - we don't really want to > > > > > print a > > > > > message on something that might have been received from the > > > > > peer, I > > > > > think? Though I suppose we should return 0 for the invalid > > > > > combinations, indicating that they're not supported. > > > > > > > > Ah. This is all non-functional code yet, right? At least having > > > > a > > > > static non-inline function in ieee80211.h will give build > > > > issues I > > > > would think. > > > > > > No, I marked it __maybe_unused so it'll be fine. I didn't want to > > > have > > > it inlined if you use it multiple times in a single source file, > > > but I > > > didn't want to move it to somewhere else either ... > > > > Ah. Now I understand the trickery ;-) Was there really no > > "somewhere > > else" to move it, because honestly it is confusing and a bit > > wasteful if > > used multiple times in cfg80211 and/or drivers. > > Although exporting it also comes at a cost. Yeah, we could put it into cfg80211 and export it. I haven't really looked how big it is, but it does seem big. The other thing is that the ieee80211.h file was pretty much standalone definitions of the spec until now - if we move it to cfg80211, should the function prototype really be declared in this file? johannes
