On 30 March 2016 at 17:42, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/30/2016 03:07 AM, Michal Kazior wrote: >> >> On 29 March 2016 at 23:30, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Can a single peer object really have more than one ID? >> >> >> When you install keys you typically get more ids via htt-peer-map >> event. I think there were some other cases as well.. >> >> >>> Is this trying to deal with shared peer objects, perhaps? >> >> >> This was developed very long ago when peer-id mapping wasn't really >> well understood. Perhaps we could make do without peer id map now? >> i.e. only care about the first htt-peer-map per peer address? > > > The 10.4.3 firmware can probably still do shared peers, though not sure if > it actually > happens in practice, and I'm not sure it that would cause this bitmap to > ever have more than one bit set anyway. > > It just struck me as strange, mainly, and since the radio struct has > a peer array indexed by the peer-id, then it would seem that we should never > have duplicate bits set in any of the peer objects. And, if that is > correct, > then the bitmap or similar should probably be in the radio struct instead of > in peer objects.
Ah, good point. The peer_map[] was introduced recently to allow quick peer_id -> peer/station translation for pull-push purposes. So yes - there some duplication going on now. I guess the bitmap could go away. Michał _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
