From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f228.google.com ([209.85.218.228]:51571 "EHLO mail-bw0-f228.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753889AbZGWKqt (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:46:49 -0400 Received: by bwz28 with SMTP id 28so725286bwz.37 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:46:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Helmut Schaa To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mac80211: Replace {sw, hw}_scanning variables with a bitfield Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:46:55 +0200 Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20090723100732.5147.73989.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090723101403.5147.55273.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1248345497.19121.22.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1248345497.19121.22.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200907231246.56210.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2009 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 12:14 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Use a bitfield to store the current scan mode instead of two boolean > > variables {sw,hw}_scanning. This patch does not introduce functional > > changes but allows us to enhance the scan flags later (for example > > for background scanning). > > > + if (test_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING, &local->scanning)) > > Do we actually need atomic bitops? No (at least not yet). That's why I used __set_bit. test_bit seems to not have a non-atomic equivalent. Or did you mean not to use *_bit functions at all? Helmut