[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46ECE041.3090001@garzik.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:50:25 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please pull 'adm8211' branch of wireless-2.6
Michael Wu wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:56, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>> + if (flags & IFF_PROMISC)
>>>>> + dev->flags |= IEEE80211_HW_RX_INCLUDES_FCS;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + dev->flags &= ~IEEE80211_HW_RX_INCLUDES_FCS;
>>>> why does promisc dictate inclusion of FCS?
>>> Because that's the way the hardware works.
>> Why not always include it, regardless of promisc?
>>
> I really do mean that's how the hardware works. If you turn on the promisc bit
> in the hardware (which IFF_PROMISC causes), it starts including the FCS, but
> if the bit is not set, the FCS is not included in frames.
OK, I was confused by the name. Based on the constant's name, I was
assuming that you could unconditionally enable it, promisc or not.
Nevermind. I thought that was a hardware rather than software bit.
> What form of debugging are you talking about? I don't see how it makes a
> difference for debugging. The type checking provided by enums won't make a
When you are tracing through with kgdb, the code is actually readable.
You see
dev->flags |= IEEE80211_HW_RX_INCLUDES_FCS;
rather than the far more obtuse
dev->flags |= 8;
Ditto for any time you have to read pre-processed source code. I do so
at least once a month, since post-cpp code shows you precisely what the
compiler is munching, after all the macro magic goes away.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists