On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 18:58 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap {
> + bool ht_supported; /* this must be first */
> u16 cap; /* use IEEE80211_HT_CAP_ */
> - bool ht_supported;
> - struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap ht_cap;
> + union {
> + struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap ht_cap;
> + bool ht_supported;
> + };
> + bool ht_cap_invalid;
Yuck. Why use the union at all? You could just put the ht_cap_invalid
into the ht_cap struct, and it wouldn't even take space, there's
padding :-)
> @@ -30,13 +31,16 @@ rdev_freq_to_chan(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
> chan->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40PLUS)
> return NULL;
>
> - ht_cap = &rdev->wiphy.bands[chan->band]->ht_cap;
> + sband = rdev->wiphy.bands[chan->band];
> + ht_cap = &sband->ht_cap;
>
> if (channel_type != NL80211_CHAN_NO_HT) {
> - if (!ht_cap->ht_supported)
> + if (!sband->ht_supported)
> return NULL;
>
> - if (channel_type != NL80211_CHAN_HT20 &&
> + /* this check is ignored when per-band HT caps are not used */
> + if (!sband->ht_cap_invalid &&
> + channel_type != NL80211_CHAN_HT20 &&
This is also major confusion, it seems you should roll 2/3 into one
patch?
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
