From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103B184DAF for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:57:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.netbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 60GRrL0EOOC2 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29C6A84D33 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <82c52c849dace45d056dcb2b83c9be94b54f9ccb.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: Proposed Tx flag: don't reorder frames From: Johannes Berg Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:57:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1f5e4f999c980e86ebec213b0b3bfcd9d22ede15.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: radiotap-owner@radiotap.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Mathy Vanhoef Cc: radiotap@netbsd.org On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 04:05 +0400, Mathy Vanhoef wrote: > To follow up on this: the only downside is that OpenBSD is using the > TX flags identifier to report the hardware queue on which a frame was > received. > > Since Linux and NetBSD are using TX flags, and Wireshark decided to > already accept the patch to support TX flags as well, it seems to make > sense to let this identifier represent TX flags. Then only one > implementation (OpenBSD) would have to be updated to match this. I'm > assuming nobody would be against this, since there have been more than > three weeks to discuss this, and nobody brought this up. > > What's the next step? Adopt the proposal in one week if there are no > further objections? Sorry this took so long. I think we need to make a proper proposal again for the whole TX flags field, since that was never officially adopted? > PS: Is the archive on https://lore.kernel.org/radiotap/ being updated? Looks like no, I have asked the admins there, but didn't hear back yet. johannes