From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:36480 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946959Ab3BHUqh (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:46:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:46:32 -0600 From: Seth Forshee To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Stanislaw Gruszka Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mac80211: Fix tx queue handling during scans Message-ID: <20130208204632.GE2622@thinkpad-t410> (sfid-20130208_215344_121471_5AF8B4F5) References: <1360189829.7910.84.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1360259677-19278-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <1360314212.29851.4.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130208171155.GC2622@thinkpad-t410> <1360343852.29851.26.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130208181002.GD2622@thinkpad-t410> <1360350359.29851.27.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1360350359.29851.27.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:05:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 12:10 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > Well, I think the way that will be simplest with the fewest code changes > > would be to use a tx control flag. Of course then we've gobbled up one > > of the last available flags. > > Let's do that anyway then. I still think we need to do the > PS/scan/offchannel thing I described in another mail anyway, so that'd > be a better interim step than changing all the prototypes... When I originally looked at using a tx control flag I didn't think that using IEEE80211_TX_CTL_TX_OFFCHAN would work, but now I'm not sure why. Is there any reason not to do this? Seth