Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.230]:54961 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755285AbYHEPVE (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:21:04 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so2642989rvb.1 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240808050821p1668f54cl9822bf5f82cec49c@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080805_172111_287204_55CCD85B) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:21:03 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mac80211: filter probes in ieee80211_rx_mgmt_probe_resp Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, yi.zhu@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1217927348.3603.29.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1217763121-9057-1-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <1217787259.4721.18.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240808050014t6e315fe5s607aff1656c1f8d1@mail.gmail.com> <1217927348.3603.29.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 10:14 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >> > On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 14:32 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> >> This patch moves filtering statement from ieee80211_rx_bss_info >> >> which is called for both beacon and probe to ieee80211_rx_mgmt_probe_resp >> >> and save few cycles in beacon parsing. >> > >> > Sounds alright to me, but maybe we should then document that >> > rx_bss_info() only expects data for the right BSSID? >> >> Probes are filtered on destination address not on BSSID, to exclude >> probe responses not directed to the station. >> bss_info treats any BSSID this is what creates the bss list after all >> if I'm not mistaken. > > Eh, right, of course, not sure why I got confused there. Still though, > adding a few lines of comments would be nice. If we did that every time > we changed a function, we'd have documentation for all functions in no > time ;) Oh well... > I agree, I haven't added any function in this patch so I'm not sure it's appropriate to add comments within this patch. The statement I've moved is already commented. I can comment the function in a different patch. Thanks Tomas