On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 10:12 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote:
>> keep a list of all the vifs associated with our hw.
>> it will be later used in order to iterate through vifs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl12xx.h b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl12xx.h
>> index 33ccdf8..55561c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl12xx.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl12xx.h
>> @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ struct wl1271 {
>> unsigned long roles_map[BITS_TO_LONGS(WL12XX_MAX_ROLES)];
>> unsigned long roc_map[BITS_TO_LONGS(WL12XX_MAX_ROLES)];
>>
>> + struct list_head wlvif_list;
>> +
>> struct wl1271_acx_mem_map *target_mem_map;
>>
>> /* Accounting for allocated / available TX blocks on HW */
>> @@ -564,6 +566,7 @@ struct wl1271_station {
>>
>> struct wl12xx_vif {
>> struct wl1271 *wl;
>> + struct list_head list;
>
> I know we alredy call this kind of thing "list" struct wl1271 for the
> ARP stuff, but I prefer "node" so it's easier to follow when calling
> list_add and friends. Mind changing?
>
i think "list" is the standard convention (e.g. see sta_info,
ieee80211_key, etc.) and more intuitive.
>
>> @@ -653,6 +656,9 @@ struct ieee80211_vif *wl12xx_wlvif_to_vif(struct wl12xx_vif *wlvif)
>> return container_of((void *)wlvif, struct ieee80211_vif, drv_priv);
>> }
>>
>> +#define wl12xx_for_each_wlvif(wl, wlvif) \
>> + list_for_each_entry(wlvif, &wl->wlvif_list, list)
>> +
>
> This looks fine, but is it really necessary? I think the call to
> list_for_each_entry is clear enough already, isn't it?
>
i find it easier to understand this way.
also, future patches will add wl12xx_for_each_wlvif_sta and
wl12xx_for_each_wlvif_ap, so it even makes more sense to use this
macro.
Eliad.
--
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
