On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 17:48 +0100, ext Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 10:03 +0200, Juuso Oikarinen wrote:
>
> > + * @NL80211_CMD_SET_CQM: Connection quality monitor configuration and
> > + * notification. This command is used both as a command (to configure
> > + * a trigger level) and as an event (to indicate the configured level was
> > + * reached.) Setting zero threshold disables the feature.
>
> I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I finally decided
> that I'd prefer another command number for the event. SET doesn't seem
> to match the event very well at all.
I'll change this. The reason I have it this way now is just that I
noticed that sharing the ID's is a common way to do it in existing code.
> > +/**
> > + * enum nl80211_cqm_rssi_threshold_event - RSSI threshold event
> > + * @NL80211_CQM_RSSI_THRESHOLD_EVENT_NONE - No RSSI threshold event occurred
>
> What is none intended for? If it's for any of the other possible future
> enhancements, I'd think in that case we just leave out the attribute?
Yes, thinking back, this was a bad idea. I'll take it out ;)
> > +static struct nla_policy
> > +nl80211_attr_cqm_policy[NL80211_ATTR_CQM_MAX + 1] __read_mostly = {
> > + [NL80211_ATTR_CQM_RSSI_THOLD] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > + [NL80211_ATTR_CQM_RSSI_HYST] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
>
> Now I'm confused. Not that I think we'll ever need a hysteresis value
> larger than that, but isn't that a little inconsistent?
As per your preference, I'll change this. I personally don't seem to get
over my old habit of always feeling the urge to save some bits ;)
Thanks for your comments.
-Juuso
> johannes
>
--
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
