On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:35 PM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 08:13:20PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: >> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:01:25PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:45 AM, John W. Linville >> > <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Why though? >> >> Because it is correct, appropriate, and zero additional cost. And >> because if you use the same tx path for beacons as you use for normal >> frames and if in that path you manage the sequence number in software >> you should be checking that flag before bumping the sequence number. > > That isn't worded too clearly... If you manage the sequence number > in software then you should be checking that flag before bumping > the sequence number. If you use the same tx path for beacons as is > used for normal frames and you don't set that flag for beacons, > then beacons will reuse the sequence number from the previous frame. > > Does that make sense? Yeah, thanks, perhaps the documentation should be expanded for this on the mac80211.h. This verbiage might also come in handy on the commit log. What do you think? Luis -- 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
