On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 10:48 -0700, Thomas Pedersen wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Johannes Berg
>> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> - baselen = (u8 *) mgmt->u.probe_resp.variable - (u8 *) mgmt;
>> >> + switch (stype) {
>> >> + case IEEE80211_STYPE_PROBE_RESP:
>> >> + ies = (u8 *) mgmt->u.probe_resp.variable;
>> >> + break;
>> >> + case IEEE80211_STYPE_BEACON:
>> >> + ies = (u8 *) mgmt->u.beacon.variable;
>> >> + break;
>> >> + default:
>> >> + return;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Does that really make sense? the offset is the same anyway and we don't
>> > get here with other frames.
>>
>> I don't think so:
>>
>> struct {
>> __le64 timestamp;
>> __le16 beacon_int;
>> __le16 capab_info;
>> /* followed by some of SSID, Supported rates,
>> * FH Params, DS Params, CF Params, IBSS Params, TIM */
>> u8 variable[0];
>> } __attribute__ ((packed)) beacon;
>> struct {
>> /* only variable items: SSID, Supported rates */
>> u8 variable[0];
>> } __attribute__ ((packed)) probe_req;
>
> Err, probe_req != probe_resp.
Wow, I need glasses. In that case, I'll drop this patch and resubmit.
Thanks!
Thomas
--
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
