Ivo van Doorn a écrit : >>> * L2PAD is only present for data frame and an easy way to check for that is >>> * to compare header_length with 24 bytes. >>> */ >>> #define L2PAD_SIZE(__header) \ >>> ((__header)<24 ? 0 : ((4 - ((__header)%4))%4)) >>> >> That depends on what the purpose of the L2PAD_SIZE macro is going to >> be. At the moment >> the intention is to have L2PAD_SIZE compute the number of l2pad bytes >> necessary, if a >> payload is present. Detection on whether actually a payload is present >> and whether the >> outcome of this macro should be used should be at the call-sites of this macro. > > I personally prefer the current version, I don't see a valid reason for > L2PAD_SIZE to depend on the header size. The caller should check if > the payload is present and L2 padding is required. > > Ivo Let's move forward and fix bugs later, if any. Just for my curiosity, who is commiting posted patches in wireless-testing? Regards, Benoit -- 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
