Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:39495 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755971Ab3FRPxc (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:53:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1371570798.22256.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130618_175336_131118_FFF62E11) Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 07/18] mac80211: add radiotap flag and handling for 5/10 MHz From: Johannes Berg To: Simon Wunderlich Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Mathias Kretschmer , Simon Wunderlich Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:53:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130618155051.GD27492@pandem0nium> References: <1368702045-27598-1-git-send-email-siwu@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de> <1368702045-27598-8-git-send-email-siwu@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de> <1371565626.8318.26.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130618155051.GD27492@pandem0nium> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 17:50 +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > Hmm, if this [1] is the official standard, then no, it is not defined. Don't > know when this was added in wireshark, and it was only added implicitly in > the code (no header files etc). But since it was there, I figured it would > be a good idea to re-use it (unaware that there was some "standard"). > > How shall we proceed, propose that on some radiotap mailing list officially? Yes, see http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation > > > + RX_FLAG_10MHZ = BIT(26), > > > + RX_FLAG_5MHZ = BIT(27), > > > > Does that make sense? We know what kind of channel we're on? Though it > > might be easier for the driver, so it may make sense I guess. > > Yeah, it's a little easier for the driver, and I thought it would be > cleaner to get this reported through a flag. Yeah I tend to agree. johannes