Michael Wu wrote:
> On Thursday 03 May 2007 21:21, Larry Finger wrote:
>> +static int ieee80211_ioctl_giwrate(struct net_device *dev,
>> + struct iw_request_info *info,
>> + struct iw_param *rate, char *extra)
>> +{
>> + struct ieee80211_local *local = wdev_priv(dev->ieee80211_ptr);
>> + struct sta_info * sta;
>> + struct ieee80211_sub_if_data * sdata;
> Eliminate the spaces between * and the variable name.
>
>> +
>> + sdata = IEEE80211_DEV_TO_SUB_IF(dev);
>> + if (sdata->type == IEEE80211_IF_TYPE_STA ||
>> + sdata->type == IEEE80211_IF_TYPE_IBSS)
>> + sta = sta_info_get(local, sdata->u.sta.bssid);
>> + else
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + if (!sta)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + rate->value = local->oper_hw_mode->rates[sta->txrate].rate * 100000;
> The index from sta->txrate needs to be checked to make sure it is less than
> mode->num_rates.
>
> Also, this function is safe in adhoc mode.. but it most likely won't do
> anything useful since all the sta entries have different addresses and it is
> likely that none of them are the same as the one in sdata->u.sta.bssid.
Why has the review of this patch been so strung out? Everything you comment on
here was in versions
1 & 2, but not mentioned in any review of those versions.
As to the usefulness of this function, I am testing in infrastructure, not
ad-hoc, mode, and the
output matches the average rate in the log files if debugging is enabled. If
the address in
u.sta.bssid is not correct, which address should I be using? I still maintain
that the user is
entitled to know the transmission rate from user space even if debugging is
turned off, and that
this function is needed.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
