On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 21:58 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:44 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> > On 11/08/2011 12:09 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 11:36 -0800, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * We always need to advert at least MCS0-7, to
> > >> + * be a compliant HT station, for instance
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (((i * 8 + q)>= min_rates)&&
> > >
> > > This is a little misleading -- why min_rates when the comment says
> > > MCS0-7?
> >
> > I let caller determine the min, but comment was to tell why
> > the min might be set. In APs, the min supported rates are 16, evidently...not
> > that this code supports APs at the moment...
>
> About APs: that can't be right, there certainly will be 1x1 APs.
>
> > When this is about local use instead of advertising, then any minimum
> > is OK.
> >
> > Want me to just remove the comment entirely?
>
> Well, so, I think the logic there is a little odd anyway -- why aren't
> you doing it byte-wise, if the only thing that can possibly happen is
> that the first byte is masked or not? Maybe change the parameter to
> "bool allow_single_stream_mask" or something like that and adjust the
> algorithm like:
>
> start = allow_single_stream_mask ? 0 : 1;
>
> for (i = start; i < IEEE80211_HT_MCS_MASK_LEN; i++) {
> u8 val = smask[i] & scaps[i];
> val |= ht_cap->mcs.rx_mask[i] & ~smask[i];
> ht_cap->mcs.rx_mask[i] val;
> }
Ok, no, I totally misunderstood the variables here, but anyway, it seems
there's no need for bit-wise stuff.
johannes
--
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
