On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:47:20PM +0800, Judy Chen wrote: > Renee, > Thanks for the review. Below is our response to your comments on net80211 > ioctl. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks for the reply; this looks good. Just one comment in-line. -renee > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > usr/src/uts/common/io/net80211/net80211_ioctl.c > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RD-09 562 Edit Another consistency issue: either inp should > be passed to all wifi_cfg_* functions, whether > they use it or not; or it shouldn't be passed > if it's not used. Right now, it isn't passed > to wifi_cfg_linkstatus(), but it is passed to > wifi_cfg_suprates(); neither function uses it. > wifi_cfg_rssi() and wifi_cfg_esslist are other > functions that do not use it. > > | ACCEPT & EXPLAIN > | After accepting Kacheong's comments on 'L963, 1030-1032', All > | wifi_cfg_<command> used to process an command will have the > | same arguments as below: > | static int > | wifi_cmd_<command>(struct ieee80211com *ic, mblk_t *mp) > | and all wifi_cfg_<parameter> used to get/set an parameter will > | have the same arguments as below: > | static int > | wifi_cfg_<parameter>(struct ieee80211com *ic, uint32_t cmd, mblk_t > **mp) Just to be sure I understood correctly: you're making the changes outlined above in response to Kacheong's comments, and the webrev I looked at was from before those changes. So once those changes are done, my comment will no longer be relevant. If so, that sounds fine. Thanks! renee _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
