Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]:50648 "EHLO mail-ew0-f216.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754803Ab0CIUqA (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:46:00 -0500 Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so964406ewy.28 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:45:58 -0800 (PST) To: Juuso Oikarinen Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/22] wl1271: Clean up TX security sequence number handling References: <1266820722-20202-1-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com> <1266820722-20202-21-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com> From: Kalle Valo Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:45:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1266820722-20202-21-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com> (Juuso Oikarinen's message of "Mon\, 22 Feb 2010 08\:38\:40 +0200") Message-ID: <878wa1dy0u.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Juuso Oikarinen writes: > Instead of managing the TX security sequence number as two variables, use > one 64 bit variable. This greatly simplifies the handling of the number. [...] > - u16 tx_security_seq_16; > - u32 tx_security_seq_32; > + s64 tx_security_seq; I'm curious, why s64 and not u64? I'm sure there's a good reason, I just wasn't able figure it out. -- Kalle Valo