DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A8F6B204FD
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] wilc: add host_interface.h
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     <kvalo@codeaurora.org>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        <ganesh.krishna@microchip.com>, <aditya.shankar@microchip.com>,
        <venkateswara.kaja@microchip.com>, <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        <adham.abozaeid@microchip.com>
References: <1537957525-11467-1-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
 <1537957525-11467-4-git-send-email-ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
 <1539008417.3687.57.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <f4ab9830-7892-a062-48c4-5c5c64b5caa0@microchip.com>
 <1539081379.3687.112.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <1d77cb4d-92c9-0ea4-bdd3-f16a2421406f@microchip.com>
 <1539085569.3687.115.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
Message-ID: <092b38f4-8153-9abd-890a-a42454f22154@microchip.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:48:32 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1539085569.3687.115.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: microchip.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2018 12:18:51.9799 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 01f9e980-514e-424d-b45c-08d62de161e2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3f4057f3-b418-4d4e-ba84-d55b4e897d88
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2562
X-OriginatorOrg: microchip.com
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org


On 10/9/2018 5:16 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 17:14 +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
>> On 10/9/2018 4:06 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:04 +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> +typedef void (*wilc_remain_on_chan_expired)(void *, u32);
>>>>>> +typedef void (*wilc_remain_on_chan_ready)(void *);
>>>> I think as per coding style the typedef for function pointer are allowed.
>>> True, I guess, but why do you need them?
>> Actually these function pointer are used in multiple places i.e inside
>> the struct and also for passing as the argument for the function. So i
>> think its better to keep them as typedef to simplify and avoid any 'line
>> over 80 chars' checkpatch issue. But anyway if you suggest we can modify
>> to remove these typedefs .
> I guess that must be part of the internal bounce buffer mechanism? I
> guess leave them for now and see what falls out.
>
>>>>>> +struct hidden_network {
>>>>>>
>> Yes, its not related to hidden SSID. Suppose cfg80211 scan is called
>> with SSID information(active scan) then SSID info will be maintained in
>> this structure.
> so maybe rename this?
>
Yes, sure I will rename this struct.

Regards,
Ajay