Return-path: Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34243 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752545Ab0CWPuv (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:50:51 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu6NO-0003sJ-E4 for linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:50:44 +0100 Received: from studpool-lan62.fbi.h-da.de ([141.100.40.62]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:50:42 +0100 Received: from m1kes by studpool-lan62.fbi.h-da.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:50:42 +0100 To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org From: Michael Stahn Subject: Re: [Proposal]TX flags Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <69e28c910904141733m72ce521ap8f1865bec991fff7@mail.gmail.com> <201003230942.15718.br1@einfach.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > similar to this we would also need to be able to specify that the beacon TSF > should not be overwritten. maybe a general flag like "do not change" would do? Is TSF really overwritten at manual injection from userspace? Yes such a flag would be handy, the question is: is there a need for controlling every individual TX-option (min 3 with Sequence, Duration and TSF). If not this would be a good solution and easy to implement. Are there any other things which are commonly changed?