On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 15:11 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > Please. I'd rather go over a bit than read the above :-) > > I just fixed this by using a tmp variable. Hopefully the > compiler is smart enough to make it disappear. That works, yeah. > > I really think that'd be much nicer. As it is now we have to add all > > these checks everywhere, if we just calculate it once and then change > > places to use it we just have to remember to use the right thing. > > I'm quite nervous about attempting this change. I'm pretty > confident my current patch works as designed, and over all, > it's pretty non-intrusive. I am afraid that if I start trying > to substitute something for sband->ht_cap that I'm going > to end up changing a lot of code and possibly adding all sorts > of strange bugs. You should only have to change the places where you now added the overrides, no? > Out of curiousity, if one is doing off-channel work, wouldn't > sband be different from when we associated and possibly different > in it's ht-capabilities? If so, the used-ht-caps would not > be valid for that work? Well the off-channel work will be on the channel that you're going to be using after a successful connection, so that should be OK. I'd at least like to try. If it ends up a disaster maybe we shouldn't, but the way you go back to the mask & set all the time makes me a bit nervous. 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
