From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:45718 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752077Ab1JMPAI (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:00:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: Add sta_flags to the station info From: Johannes Berg To: Helmut Schaa Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com In-Reply-To: (sfid-20111013_165441_118328_6E703E64) References: <1318516240-10033-1-git-send-email-helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <1318516981.5612.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20111013_165441_118328_6E703E64) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:00:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1318518003.5612.22.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20111013_170012_113518_F32D5BEA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 16:54 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Johannes Berg > wrote: > > Why would we care about the mask here? Wouldn't a u32 attribute with the > > set flags only make more sense? > > I though about using the mask to tell user space which flags are actually > used/supported by the driver. There might be nl80211 drivers that can't provide > all flags and hence want to mask out the flags. Otherwise user space cannot > decide if a flag is not set or not supported by the driver. Does that sound > reasonable? Yeah I was thinking that too, maybe that makes some sense. Not sure we'll really run into that? Anyway we can keep it, I don't mind. johannes