On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:39 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: >> This seems to not serve any purpose anymore, at least all frame >> processing afterwards seems to be able to deal with QoS frames. So, >> let's save the expensive memmove and just leave the QoS header in the >> 802.11 frame for further processing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> It wouldn't hurt if a second pair of eyes looks through the rx path >> to see if there's any possible problem with QoS frames in later rx >> handlers. > > Ok, but I'm on vacation until next year, so I don't know if I'll get to > it. Sure, have a nice holiday. > In principle, this seems fine, but I'd feel more comfortable if > somebody else took another look. Not that I don't trust you, just more > eyes see more things :-) No worries, I'd also like to have somebody else looking through the code since it's not quite a trivial change. Helmut -- 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
