Re: [RFC 1/5] nl80211: support sending TDLS commands/frames

[Kalyan Chakravarthy <chakkal@iit.edu>]

I thought ATTR_FRAME would be more appropriate since it carries multiple IE's, such as RSN, FTIE etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:54 am
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] nl80211: support sending TDLS commands/frames

> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 13:25 +0300, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> 
> > +static int nl80211_tdls_mgmt(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
> genl_info *info)
> > +{
> > +	struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = info->user_ptr[0];
> > +	struct net_device *dev = info->user_ptr[1];
> > +	u8 action_code, dialog_token;
> > +	u16 status_code;
> > +	u8 *peer;
> > +
> > +	if (!rdev->ops->tdls_mgmt)
> > +        	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > +	if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TDLS_ACTION] ||
> > +            !info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_STATUS_CODE] ||
> > +            !info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TDLS_DIALOG_TOKEN] ||
> > +            !info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_FRAME] ||
> > +            !info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_MAC])
> > +        	return -EINVAL;
> 
> Should that really use ATTR_FRAME as opposed to ATTR_IE?
> 
> johannes
> 
>