Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:54812 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755939Ab1CBIZ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 03:25:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] [{mac|nl}80211] Add 2 new radar channel flags From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Bernhard Schmidt , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Luis Rodriguez , "nbd@openwrt.org" , "dubowoj@neratec.com" , "zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com" , "simon.wunderlich@saxnet.de" In-Reply-To: <20110301215412.GD6835@tux> References: <201102281740.37036.bernhard.schmidt@saxnet.de> <201102281747.06564.bernhard.schmidt@saxnet.de> <20110301215412.GD6835@tux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1299054317.4076.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 13:54 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > + * @NL80211_FREQUENCY_ATTR_RADAR_CLEAR: during a full CAC no interference has > > + * been detected. > > Why do you need a flag for clear, can you simply count on the > lack of the flag as the "clear" state? This really means CAC_DONE_AND_FOUND_CLEAR. Though now that has me wondering, maybe it should be CAC_DONE and BUSY as separate flags? But then the checks have to be (CAC_DONE && !BUSY), which is more expressive but also more complex and error prone. johannes