On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:35:59 -0700, mabbas wrote: > Should I add the new field to sta_info or to ieee80211_sub_if_data. If > we added to sta_info then it wont be persistent. > We will loose SIOCSIWRATE restriction once we associate with new AP. > Then in 3 > we bitmask sta->curr_rates with ieee80211_sub_if_data::allowed_rates and > this will solve the problem for IBSS as well.
Fine with me. Though I'm not sure that Jouni will agree :-) On the other hand, as WE are considered obsolete now, it's more important to have a nice design than to support all WE calls in an intuitive way. But we will have to convert d80211 to cfg80211 anyway, so it will depend on the way rate limiting is implemented in cfg80211 in the end. Jiri -- Jiri Benc SUSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
