From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:42776 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932930AbXBESQs (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:16:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:16:46 +0100 From: Jiri Benc To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Wu , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] cfg80211 and nl80211 Message-ID: <20070205191646.54763005@griffin.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <1170697795.3572.32.camel@johannes.berg> References: <20070131013717.GA28076@tuxdriver.com> <200701302146.05289.flamingice@sourmilk.net> <1170325092.2236.17.camel@johannes.berg> <200702051245.35452.flamingice@sourmilk.net> <1170697795.3572.32.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:49:55 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Let's make monitor interfaces > > resemble monitoring ethernet a little more by reporting both RXed frames and > > TXed frames. *BSD does this too and it makes running ethereal on monitor > > interfaces much more useful. > > We do this right now afaik. AFAIK we report RXed frames only. > > TX frame reporting can be done simply in the > > ieee80211_tx_status call, allowing the TX status to be reported on real > > frames. > > I don't quite understand this comment. TX status reporting should go via > nl80211. I think Michael meant that an elegant way for sending also TXed frames to monitor interfaces is to do that in ieee80211_tx_status. Makes sense to me. Jiri -- Jiri Benc SUSE Labs