On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 20:17 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > 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? Simply because most drivers don't need it and it adds another item to mac80211's bag of complex stuff to understand ;-) Mattias -- 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
