On 10/09/2018 05:18 AM, Ajay Singh wrote:
>
> 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
>
Johannes, is the cfg80211_scan_request.ssid used for something else other than
specifying the hidden networks that the controller should scan for?
