Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48070 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756810AbZJLUIs (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20091012.130844.218270782.davem@davemloft.net> To: linville@tuxdriver.com Cc: kalle.valo@iki.fi, johannes@sipsolutions.net, hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: fix ieee80211_rx() context From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20091012133835.GB27575@tuxdriver.com> References: <87y6nhoqud.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> <20091011.200857.141215452.davem@davemloft.net> <20091012133835.GB27575@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "John W. Linville" Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:38:36 -0400 > I'm not sure I see the difference between this and the rationale for > having netif_rx_ni vs. an open-coded version of it? ieee80211_rx_ni > seems like a small amount of code (could even be inline) that > potentially avoids some stupid bugs...? Sure, no problem, feel free to add ieee80211_rx_ni().