On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 13:34 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 10:27 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> > - for (i = 0; i < NUM_RX_DATA_QUEUES; i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_RX_DATA_QUEUES + 1; i++) {
>
> Perhaps we could have a define for NUM_RX_DATA_QUEUES + 1, e.g.
> NUM_RX_ALL_QUEUES
I kinda disagree. Yes, this is tricky code, but adding a define wouldn't
make it clearer. In fact, it isn't really related to queues to start
with, and ALL_QUEUES would just strengthen that mostly wrong notion.
I guess it really should be renamed to TIDs with the last two being
special for non-QoS (so no TID) traffic + mgmt traffic. But then
sequence numbers are allocated from the same counter (so there we just
have 17 possibilities) while PNs have 18 counters...
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
