From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 21 21:55:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAFA1065672; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:55:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from netrolller.3d@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f210.google.com (mail-fx0-f210.google.com [209.85.220.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CC88FC0A; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:55:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so642659fxm.43 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:55:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Fr8iyq5zQnKLJZ++FqECWHM7VwJqCEDHzjUNyBRuMs=; b=Ey34FzeDRDNPaDaWRa8ip8fPIxH48jOdCbTUaU6GA5tQJLqCvRl3m6JT/fD467C/fz SHuY6y9udEZZB6V15hSppDfnysEKlHGMmcfs0gOGWKJPfWxIRGf3kXJFIAF5LS8ZZ7Rb uJabMzD9SZr1LMDKy74hlrGfoC0aW0qMowmo0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=lmoZRx0QWiT4CKHiYO/4eC1aBshBE7dEGFotR1jzaI9+VgohbOaPwE2bUM/sf4093z k1+18JTk+Jn2awMsVrgrbHceN1RgkKtme7446FV9uo/XtHlA2yjwKsydJK98XkKA8Hfn hu0xaaUHnjIB1b2Aq36Re1sYp9wmejfgea4kE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.86.251.40 with SMTP id y40mr1232037fgh.57.1250891747106; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:55:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1250867479.4600.11.camel@johannes.local> References: <4A8EAFA6.9010608@gmail.com> <1250865255.4600.6.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com> <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210804h6181aab1w4a864392239aa1ac@mail.gmail.com> <1250867479.4600.11.camel@johannes.local> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Stefanik?= Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <69e28c910908211455u5dcd70f0u94eab510ab91a69a@mail.gmail.com> To: Johannes Berg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:02:39 +0000 Cc: Richard Farina , Dave Young , Rafael Laufer , Sepherosa Ziehau , linux-wireless , misc-openbsd , Thomas d'Otreppe , freebsd-mobile , Mike Kershaw , Damien Bergamini , Sam Leffler , tech-openbsd , netbsd-net , wireshark-dev , radiotap Subject: Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:55:49 -0000 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg : > On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, G=E1bor Stefanik wrote: > >> I've reworked RTS/CTS since then, just haven't got to sending a new >> proposal yet. The current plan is as follows: >> >> TX_FLAGS & 0x0002: Use CTS >> TX_FLAGS & 0x0004: Use RTS >> TX_FLAGS & 0x0020: Disable RTS/CTS usage > > Seems a bit strange, wouldn't setting neither RTS nor CTS have the > effect? Seems like 0x20 should rather be "use automatic and ignore the > other bits". Anyway, not appropriate here, you should just bring a new > proposal. The point is that if all bits are 0, auto-setup is used. The problem with my original proposal (using two bits) was that an all-zero value had different effect than not including the TX flags field (and simply swapping "none" and "auto" would result in an illogicality where what would logically be "use both" would become "use neither" - just the opposite of its logical meaning). Making 0x20 mean "Auto-select RTS/CTS", interpreting all-zeros as "Use neither", would have the same problem as my proposal - all-zeros is different from a missing field. (An empty, zeroed field 15 should have no effect on the process, behaving as if field 15 was not present in the header.) > >> If I remember correctly, I made an implementation for the Linux kernel >> (a generator-side implementation) and one for Wireshark (a parser-side >> implementation). Or should I make two generator-side implementations >> according to the requirement (e.g. one for Linux, another for >> OpenBSD)? > > No, that was ok, I just meant that therefore by definition it can't be a > problem of lack of implementations. > > johannes > --=20 Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)