Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:57701 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965632AbXC1SFB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:05:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:04:13 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Pavel Roskin Cc: David Young , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Scott Raynel , radiotap@mail.ojctech.com Subject: Re: [Radiotap] Re: RFC: radiotap discrepancy in Linux vs OpenBSD Message-ID: <20070328180413.GC17793@dmt> References: <20070325232416.64xwkc0kw04oosg0@webmail.spamcop.net> <20070326033729.GG31621@che.ojctech.com> <1174949149.28132.49.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1174949149.28132.49.camel@dv> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:45:49PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:37 -0500, David Young wrote: > > > > One is found in the current wireless-2.6.git: > > > > > > IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RX_FLAGS = 14, > > > IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_TX_FLAGS = 15, > > > IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RTS_RETRIES = 16, > > > IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_DATA_RETRIES = 17, > > > > These fields are slated to become part of the standard, I just haven't got > > around to updating the manual page, yet. I have time to do that tonight. > > OK. I was wrong to assume that non-standard fields were introduced on > the Linux side. I mentioned those in the past to David Young, but I forgot to resend them to the radiotap list. >From what I gather he's OK with them.