From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Changes to ieee80211.h for user space regulatory daemon Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:10:43 -0500 Message-ID: <44849DD3.9000908@lwfinger.net> References: <447C790E.1030702@lwfinger.net> <20060605185905.GH6068@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.116]:55179 "EHLO mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855AbWFEVKq (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:10:46 -0400 To: John Linville , netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060605185905.GH6068@tuxdriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org John W. Linville wrote: >> @@ -968,6 +968,7 @@ #define IEEE80211_52GHZ_CHANNELS (IEEE80 >> >> enum { >> IEEE80211_CH_PASSIVE_ONLY = (1 << 0), >> + IEEE80211_CH_80211H_RULES = (1 << 1), >> IEEE80211_CH_B_ONLY = (1 << 2), >> IEEE80211_CH_NO_IBSS = (1 << 3), >> IEEE80211_CH_UNIFORM_SPREADING = (1 << 4), > > Any idea why this "hole" was here to begin with? Was there something > else defined as (1 << 1) previously? Is it safe to reuse this value? > > John The hole has been there as long as I have been reading the ieee80211 code. If you are not comfortable with plugging the hole, then we can use (1 << 5). Larry