On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 08:03 +0300, Guy Eilam wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 15:37 +0300, Guy Eilam wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/tx.c > >> index db9e47e..2c79b6e 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/tx.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/tx.c > >> @@ -135,12 +135,10 @@ static int wl1271_tx_allocate(struct wl1271 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb, u32 extra, > >> u32 len; > >> u32 total_blocks; > >> int id, ret = -EBUSY; > >> - u32 spare_blocks; > >> + u32 spare_blocks = wl->tx_spare_blocks; > >> > >> if (unlikely(wl->quirks & WL12XX_QUIRK_USE_2_SPARE_BLOCKS)) > >> spare_blocks = 2; > >> - else > >> - spare_blocks = 1; > > > > Do we still need the quirk now? Wouldn't it be nicer to change the > > wl->tx_spare_blocks value directly instead? > > > > We still need the quirk because if we change the tx_spare_blocks > directly, then the > we also need to have a tx_spare_blocks_previously member so that the KEY_GEM > code will know the value to set in KEY_REMOVAL. > Do you really think that it is better? No, indeed this sounds more complicated, so you can keep it as it is. -- Cheers, Luca. -- 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
