Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:61393 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754093Ab2DJBsS convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 21:48:18 -0400 Received: by iagz16 with SMTP id z16so6667655iag.19 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:48:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1333957617-13732-1-git-send-email-yeohchunyeow@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:48:17 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20120410_034849_753606_EAF8D765) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix the assignment of PREQ's MAC address for Proactive RANN From: Yeoh Chun-Yeow To: Javier Cardona Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linville@tuxdriver.com, devel@lists.open80211s.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Javier > 1. I would suggest rewording the description. ?Maybe something like: > > "Record the RANN sender's address only for RANNs that meet the > acceptance criteria (per sections 13.10.12.4.2)." Noted, your description is clearer. > 2. Also, to properly review the patch, I had to find your earlier > patch (http://lists.open80211s.org/pipermail/devel/2012-March/003113.html) > that's still in John's queue. ?Maybe merge the two patches and > resubmit? I have found out that the previous patches are merged upstream 5 hours ago. > 3. Before your patch, the address in rann_snd_addr was always valid if > mpath->is_root == true. ?This is why elsewhere in the code you could > safely do things like: > > da = (mpath && mpath->is_root) ? mpath->rann_snd_addr : broadcast_addr; > > This is no longer the case, at least not evidently. ?Can you double > check that the possibility where mpath->is_root == true and > mpath->rann_snd_addr is uninitialized is correctly addressed? ?Maybe > by initializing mpath->rann_snd_addr to be the broadcast address? > Ok, I will take a look on this. Perhaps, adding it on the mesh_path_add routine. > 4. The comment ?/* Using individually addressed PREQ for root node */ > does not make sense there. ?I think it's ok to remove, or reword as /* > Recording RANNs sender address to send individually addressed PREQs > destined for root node */ Noted. Regards, Chun-Yeow