From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3 04/11] nl80211: add driver api for gscan notifications
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:02:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1481882578.27953.20.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69ec7e9f-cd46-c46d-140c-0b30343cc0f7@broadcom.com> (sfid-20161214_110729_469384_D509A875)
> Not sure what is meant by "through the buckets".
TBH, I was handwaving because I don't understand this part of gscan
well :-)
> Referring to your
> remark/question in the "Unversal scan proposal" thread:
>
> """
> I'm much more worried about the "bucket reporting" since that doesn't
> fit into the current full BSS reporting model at all. What's your
> suggestion for this?
> """
>
> So this is exactly the dilemma I considered so I decided to stick
> with the full BSS reporting model for gscan as well merely to get it
> discussed so glad you brought it up ;-).
Heh.
Ok, so I missed that. Somehow I thought hidden in the buckets was a
partial reporting :-)
> The problem here is that gscan is a vehicle that serves a number of
> use-cases. So ignoring hotlists, ePNO, etc. the gscan configuration
> still hold several notification types:
>
> - report after completing M scans capturing N best APs or a
> percentage of (M * N).
> - report after completing a scan include a specific bucket.
> - report full scan results.
>
> The first two notification trigger retrieval of gscan results which
> are historic, ie. partial scan results for max M scans.
>
> As said earlier the universal scan proposal has some similarities to
> gscan. Guess you share that as you are using the term "bucket
> reporting" in that discussion ;-). The historic results are needed
> for location (if I am not mistaken) so the full BSS reporting model
> does not fit that. Question is what particular attribute in the
> historic results is needed for location (suspecting only rssi and
> possibly the timestamp, but would like to see that confirmed). I was
> thinking about have historic storage in cfg80211 so we do not need a
> per-driver solution.
Ok, now I'm starting to understand this better, I guess.
As far as I can tell from our code, for cached results we're reporting
the following data:
* some flags
* a scan ID
* and for each AP:
* RSSI
* timestamp
* channel
* BSSID
* SSID (which internally we even have a separate table for and each
AP just has an index to it, to save memory I guess)
* beacon period
* capability field
No IEs and similar things like differentiating probe response/beacon,
so we can't use the full reporting for this.
I have no problem introducing a common storage for this, if necessary
with some fields/nl attributes being optional, but I suspect this is
actually a necessary part of gscan, otherwise you're not able to report
all the necessary data?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-16 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 11:59 [RFC V3 00/11] nl80211: add support for g-scan Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 01/11] nl80211: add reporting of gscan capabilities Arend van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:15 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-13 20:02 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 02/11] nl80211: rename some notification functions Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 03/11] nl80211: add support for gscan Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 17:43 ` Dan Williams
2016-12-12 20:01 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:19 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-13 20:09 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 22:29 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-14 9:01 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-16 10:13 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-16 12:21 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 04/11] nl80211: add driver api for gscan notifications Arend van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:20 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-14 10:07 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-16 10:02 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2016-12-16 12:17 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-16 12:36 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 05/11] brcmfmac: fix memory leak in brcmf_cfg80211_attach() Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 06/11] brcmfmac: fix uninitialized field in scheduled scan ssid configuration Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 07/11] brcmfmac: add firmware feature detection for gscan feature Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 08/11] brcmfmac: report gscan capabilities if firmware supports it Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 09/11] brcmfmac: implement gscan functionality Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 10/11] brcmfmac: handle gscan events from firmware Arend van Spriel
2016-12-12 11:59 ` [RFC V3 11/11] brcmfmac: allow gscan to run concurrent with scheduled scan Arend van Spriel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1481882578.27953.20.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.