From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:37353 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756592Ab0KJTpA (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:45:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4CDAF634.1010001@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:44:52 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruno Randolf CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath5k: Adjust opmode when interfaces are removed. References: <1286564475-10105-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <201010121044.39093.br1@einfach.org> <4CB3C3A3.5040309@candelatech.com> <201010121148.19073.br1@einfach.org> In-Reply-To: <201010121148.19073.br1@einfach.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/11/2010 07:48 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Tue October 12 2010 11:10:43 Ben Greear wrote: >> On 10/11/2010 06:44 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: >>> On Sat October 9 2010 04:01:15 greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >>>> + >>>> + /* Calculate combined mode - when APs are active, operate in AP mode. >>>> + * Otherwise use the mode of the new interface. This can currently >>>> + * only deal with combinations of APs and STAs. Only one ad-hoc >>>> + * interfaces is allowed above. >>> >>> the comment reference to "above" does not make sense here any more. >> >> This patch is already in..but I can send a followup cleanup patch. > > just for the comment it's probably not worth it, but... > >>>> ieee80211_vif *vif) +static void ath_do_set_opmode(struct ath5k_softc >>>> *sc) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct ath5k_hw *ah = sc->ah; >>>> + ath5k_hw_set_opmode(ah, sc->opmode); >>>> + ATH5K_DBG(sc, ATH5K_DEBUG_MODE, "mode setup opmode %d (%s)\n", >>>> + sc->opmode, >>>> + ath_opmode_to_string(sc->opmode) ? >>>> + ath_opmode_to_string(sc->opmode) : "UKNOWN"); >>>> +} >>> >>> what's the point of this function? just to add the debug print? >> >> Yes. At one point, I had it being called from several places..but now it's >> called from only one place currently, I think. I could make it explicitly >> inline code if someone cared. > > i think i do care. could you please just open-code it at the one place where > you call this function? I just posted a patch to do these two things. Thanks for the suggestions! Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com