On 05/05/2011 09:13 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:51 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
But this is a new feature, and a new command, so I don't quite
understand why an application would think it can send it without the
interval?
Oh wait, I guess you're right, or this should just be part of patch 1
instead so we never have the feature without the requirement to have the
interval given.
Yeah, I could squish this with the previous patch (1/3), but I just
reckoned that patch was getting too big, so I decided to make a separate
one.
If this whole patch series is taken at the same time, I guess there
won't be backwards compatibility problems (except for bisecting,
maybe?).
Anyways, I'll leave it as your choice. Squishing the patch is easy
enough. ;)
Ah, and one more thought... There's no driver implementing this at this
point, so is there anything to really worry about?
Yeah, good point, no big deal. We can keep it -- I just didn't even
understand why Ben thought it would not be compatible but it makes sense
if you just look at the patch by itself.
I was a bit confused..didn't realize it was a new command that had just
been added. I thought someone was adding a required member to the existing
scan logic.
So, I have no complaints.
Thanks,
Ben
johannes
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
