On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 04:15, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 23:50 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > > If the driver supports hardware TX fragmentation, don't fragment > > packets in the stack. > > I'm not sure why you have three patches? Seems like it could all be a > single mac80211 patch. Sure. I'll send a v2 with the mac80211 patches bundled into a single one. > > > @@ -1181,8 +1183,10 @@ ieee80211_tx_prepare(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, > > /* > > * Set this flag (used below to indicate "automatic fragmentation"), > > * it will be cleared/left by radiotap as desired. > > + * Only valid when fragmentation is done by the stack. > > */ > > - tx->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_FRAGMENTED; > > + if (!(local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_TX_FRAGMENTATION)) > > + tx->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_FRAGMENTED; > > Do we really need the hw flag? Couldn't we go off the callback, like we > used to? I'm not really sure which one would perform better though, I > guess the flag might ... I think the flag may be less confusing for new driver writers. Someone can implement the callback as a no-op and have a bug in his code as a result. Regards, Arik -- 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
