From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:51051 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755083Ab1KCIhs (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:37:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mac80211: Support forcing station to disable HT (802.11n). From: Johannes Berg To: greearb@candelatech.com Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1320299722-30113-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (sfid-20111103_065534_192366_EF6ABFB6) References: <1320299722-30113-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (sfid-20111103_065534_192366_EF6ABFB6) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:37:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1320309465.3950.14.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20111103_093753_210769_DC31D0B7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 22:55 -0700, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: > From: Ben Greear > > This allows a user to configure a wifi station interface > to disable the HT features, even if the AP and NIC supports it. I like this version much better. Some nitpicks: > +#define ASSOC_REQ_DISABLE_HT (1<<0) /* Disable HT (802.11n) */ You could use an enum to use kernel-doc notation here. > @@ -1046,6 +1048,7 @@ struct cfg80211_auth_request { > * @use_mfp: Use management frame protection (IEEE 802.11w) in this association > * @crypto: crypto settings > * @prev_bssid: previous BSSID, if not %NULL use reassociate frame > + * @flags: See ASSOC_REQ_* flags above. and then say "See &enum cfg80211_assoc_req_flags" or so should even create the correct link in kernel-doc output. > @@ -1053,6 +1056,7 @@ struct cfg80211_assoc_request { > size_t ie_len; > struct cfg80211_crypto_settings crypto; > bool use_mfp; > + u32 flags; Seems like it might be good for use_mfp to become a flag? Anyway, internal APIs are easy to change. > --- a/net/mac80211/mlme.c > +++ b/net/mac80211/mlme.c I'd rather split this up into cfg80211/mac80211. In fact, maybe splitting it into one cfg80211 and one mac80211 patch, instead of three different patches that span both might be worthwhile? johannes