> You have no recollection what happened in the earlier versions, right? :-p
v1 was very incomplete, it didn't have any results reporting, etc.
> > v3:
> > - add a bit to report "final" for partial results
> > - remove list keeping etc. and just unicast out the results
> > to the requester (big code reduction ...)
> > - also send complete message unicast, and as a result
> > remove the multicast group
> > - separate out struct cfg80211_pmsr_ftm_request_peer
> > from struct cfg80211_pmsr_request_peer
> > - document timeout == 0 if no timeout
> > - disallow setting timeout nl80211 attribute to 0,
> > must not include attribute for no timeout
>
> All these negations make my head spin (a little). Let's look at the
> actual documentation further down...
:-)
> > +struct cfg80211_pmsr_ftm_result {
> > + const u8 *lci;
> > + const u8 *civicloc;
> > + unsigned int lci_len;
> > + unsigned int civicloc_len;
> > + enum nl80211_peer_measurement_ftm_failure_reasons failure_reason;
> > + u32 num_ftmr_attempts, num_ftmr_successes;
>
> Maybe there is a good reason, but can we move the above line a bit down...
The reason was to avoid having padding for alignment.
> > + NL80211_ATTR_TIMEOUT,
> > +
>
> Guess you consider reuse of the TIMEOUT attribute?
Yes, I was actually surprised we don't have one already :-)
> I checked the policy
> definition in nl80211_policy so it disallows 0 value as mentioned in the
> changelog. How about adding that to the documentation here, ie. "when
> timeout attribute is not provided the timeout is disabled for the given
> operation" or something like that.
Sure, that makes sense, will do.
johannes
