On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? John Linville maintains wireless-testing, he is picking up the patches from the linux-wireless mailinglist and merges them into his tree (and pushes them upstream). 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
