On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:15:07AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 00:00 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > + * @NL80211_CMD_UNPROT_DEAUTHENTICATE: Unprotected deauthentication frame > > + * @NL80211_CMD_UNPROT_DISASSOCIATE: Unprotected disassociation frame > > I don't mind, but if we add the frame body should we really have two > commands? Or should we have just one? Are we likely to need similar > functionality for other frames? The only ones I can think of are class 3 > frames from unassociated stations, but that seems like it should be > separate anyway. This one followed the existing example of NL80211_CMD_DEAUTH/DISASSOC, but well, those are for both notification and requests, so I can see the difference there.. For these notification-only ones, I would be fine having a single command if that is desirable. Though, I would probably not go as far as merging any other frames to this list since deauth/disassoc are special case for the AP starting to send these as replies to any Class 2 or 3 frame. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA -- 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
