In D44827#1024357, @cc wrote:

In D44827#1023217, @adrian wrote:

In D44827#1023209, @bz wrote:

In D44827#1023208, @adrian wrote:

eg ath(4) would do something like:

How do you want to implement ath_settkipmic() "nicely" without exposing the field?

oops my bad. it'll be a flag for hardware encryption support! I fixed the code snippet.

I don't get it. Without exposing the field ic_cryptocaps? And where is the "fixed the code snippet"?

In D44827#1024561, @bz wrote:

Are you going to change the few drivers which need change to get rid of the public exposure as well? Otherwise this is a dead code before added.

address comments from cc@

Is is likely mis-sorted in the stack as this should go after D44922?

Are you going to change the few drivers which need change to get rid of the public exposure as well? Otherwise this is a dead code before added.

I haven't reviewed the actual function changes yet; just scrolled through

add missing RSN parsing stuff for hostapd

In D44827#1023217, @adrian wrote:

In D44827#1023209, @bz wrote:

In D44827#1023208, @adrian wrote:

eg ath(4) would do something like:

How do you want to implement ath_settkipmic() "nicely" without exposing the field?

oops my bad. it'll be a flag for hardware encryption support! I fixed the code snippet.

Also do you have any plan to update the man page regarding the new field ic_sw_cryptocaps besides ic_cryptocaps ?

Also please update the Summary section in this review, i.e. the mentioned new field ic_wpa_cryptocaps is actually the ic_sw_cryptocaps in the code change.

LGTM

I am intending to give approval, but I am afraid of missing the new response to my review comment for the code comment update. So let's be patient. :)

comment from emaste

In D44827#1023673, @emaste wrote:

I find it a little confusing with the verb & noun use of set in set_software_cipher_set - do you think set_software_ciphers (or set_sw_ciphers) is reasonable?

I find it a little confusing with the verb & noun use of set in set_software_cipher_set - do you think set_software_ciphers (or set_sw_ciphers) is reasonable?

In D37973#1003520, @bz wrote:

@lwhsu I'll just pick the first review given they all live in a window here; last time I checked and asked if they were ready for review I was told to hold off for further changes? Have they been addressed, as in, is the stack of wtap changes ready for review?

@lwhsu I'll just pick the first review given they all live in a window here; last time I checked and asked if they were ready for review I was told to hold off for further changes? Have they been addressed, as in, is the stack of wtap changes ready for review?

Can you upload this with more context? Either use arc or git diff -U9999 when creating the diff. That'll help to see surrounding code (and probably stop asking me silly questions ;-) )