On Monday 15 September 2008, Mattias Nissler wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 23:28 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Monday 15 September 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 22:20 +0200, Mattias Nissler wrote: > > > > > > > Well, I'm a big fan of modularizing everything in a clean way. This > > > > whole mac80211 thingy is complex enough... But I don't really care as > > > > long as everybody here is happy with it. Let's wait what Mikko says, > > > > it's his code so far. > > > > > > Sure. If you manage to split it out entirely, maybe by some struct that > > > drivers embed in their private vif struct, that'd be great too. > > > > I think the ACK handling could become quite complex, and although it > > would be nice to modularize it a bit, however I am not really sure about > > what the best approach would be for the implementation other then that > > the driver should do as little as possible. ;) > > Huh? I think a single function call for the matching in the rx path is > enough. You call it in the rx handler for every received frame. It > returns true if it found a match and reported the tx status (in which > case you stop processing) or false and you can go on doing with the > frame whatever you want. Am I missing something? Although this isn't much overhead for a driver, but if it comes down to a single function call anyway, why not handle it in mac80211 completely? 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
