On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 14:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you
> > still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called
> > as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI?
> >
> > I was thinking of convertin
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 14:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you
> > still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called
> > as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI?
> >
> > I was thinking of convertin
Johannes Berg wrote:
> Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you
> still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called
> as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI?
>
> I was thinking of converting the wireless code to use set_rx_mode and
> assign set_multicast_list
Hey,
Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you
still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called
as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI?
I was thinking of converting the wireless code to use set_rx_mode and
assign set_multicast_list only if the underlying har
