From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [Proposal]TX flags Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:50:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1239961859.26575.44.camel@johannes.local> References: <69e28c910904141733m72ce521ap8f1865bec991fff7@mail.gmail.com> <69e28c910904161147h5a68d3b5nd054b043d6ad2719@mail.gmail.com> <1239908374.26575.20.camel@johannes.local> <200904162110.05150.mb@bu3sch.de> <20090416204806.GD25412@ojctech.com> <69e28c910904161824t7af6860dxebf3a13069b924d5@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090417_032507_012632_CF7AA3F9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-UZ9g0TTlwNU2A7OJblho" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <69e28c910904161824t7af6860dxebf3a13069b924d5-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> (sfid-20090417_032507_012632_CF7AA3F9) Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Stefanik Cc: Michael Buesch , radiotap-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, linux-wireless List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org --=-UZ9g0TTlwNU2A7OJblho Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 03:24 +0200, G=C3=A1bor Stefanik wrote: > > I see the point that Michael is making. What do you think? Shall > > we treat it as a 2-bit wide unsigned integer field in the Tx flags, > > instead? > > >=20 > IMO that is a good idea, if we accept having non-booleans in a flags > field. In that case, this proposal comes to my mind: > -Define the second and third bits (mask 0x0006) as a quad-state flag > indicating the use of RTS/CTS. So, we can have these values for the > flag (accessible as (TXFlags & 0x0006) >> 1): > 0: neither > 1: rts > 2: cts > 3: auto-select (only makes sense when sending & during feature discovery)= --=-UZ9g0TTlwNU2A7OJblho--