Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:33126 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806AbdBOJgz (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:36:55 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id c73so27040482pfb.0 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:36:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/7] ieee80211: add new VHT capability fields/parsing To: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20170214132208.8715-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20170214132208.8715-4-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <281180d5-2a7e-00b5-f12b-13bf568812da@broadcom.com> <1487150216.4026.18.camel@sipsolutions.net> Cc: j@w1.fi, greearb@candelatech.com From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170215_105657_018945_7CAFD95A) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:36:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1487150216.4026.18.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 15-2-2017 10:16, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 10:08 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> [snip] >> >> Looks good to me. > > Thanks for checking :) > >>> + /* not covered or invalid combination received */ >> >> Do you want to inform about the invalid/reserved combination. > > I'm not really sure what to do - we don't really want to print a > message on something that might have been received from the peer, I > think? Though I suppose we should return 0 for the invalid > combinations, indicating that they're not supported. Ah. This is all non-functional code yet, right? At least having a static non-inline function in ieee80211.h will give build issues I would think. Anyway, I would indeed return 0 and have caller deal with that. Regards, Arend