On Friday 28 October 2011 05:41 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
On 10/25/2011 01:37 PM, rmani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Raja Mani<rmani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Raja Mani<rmani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Try to avoid empty commit logs. You could just say that these commands
will be used by the following patch if nothing else.
+int ath6kl_wmi_add_wow_pattern_cmd(struct wmi *wmi,
+ struct wmi_add_wow_pattern_cmd *add_wow_cmd,
+ u8 *pattern, u8 *mask)
+{
Don't use a struct as the parameter, instead add individual parameters.
So something like this:
int ath6kl_wmi_add_wow_pattern_cmd(struct wmi *wmi,
u8 id, u8 size, 8 offset,
u8 *pattern, u8 *mask)
This is easier for the caller and you get to handle the endian in the
callee which simplifies the code.
Agree.. I'll take care in V2.
+ size = sizeof(*cmd) +
+ ((2 * add_wow_cmd->filter_size) * sizeof(u8));
This can fit into line. And sizeof(u8) really doesn't make any sense.
And is this correct? The struct is defined like this:
+struct wmi_add_wow_pattern_cmd {
+ u8 filter_list_id;
+ u8 filter_size;
+ u8 filter_offset;
+ u8 filter[1];
+} __packed;
So there's one extra byte for the filter and above you include also that
byte. But if the sctruct is defined like this the extra byte is not
included:
+struct wmi_add_wow_pattern_cmd {
+ u8 filter_list_id;
+ u8 filter_size;
+ u8 filter_offset;
+ u8 filter[0];
+} __packed;
Good catch.. I'll correct it.
+int ath6kl_wmi_del_wow_pattern_cmd(struct wmi *wmi,
+ struct wmi_del_wow_pattern_cmd *del_wow_cmd)
Same here as earlier, don't use the struct as a parameter.
Okay..
Kalle
--
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
