Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:23060 "EHLO mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753189Ab0CJFuV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:50:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/22] wl1271: Clean up TX security sequence number handling From: Juuso Oikarinen To: ext Kalle Valo Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <878wa1dy0u.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> References: <1266820722-20202-1-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com> <1266820722-20202-21-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com> <878wa1dy0u.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:47:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1268200049.10120.455.camel@wimaxnb.nmp.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 21:45 +0100, ext Kalle Valo wrote: > 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. > Hi, good question. I don't remember the reasoning either. Good news is that we only need the first 48 bits, so it shouldn't matter so much. -Juuso