From: Vladimir Kondratiev <qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>,
"Peer, Ilan" <ilan.peer@intel.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rodriguez, Luis" <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>,
"John W . Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] cfg80211: P2P find phase offload
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:30:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1894431.CPHELQbCIP@lx-vladimir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1370418780.8920.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 09:53:00 AM Johannes Berg wrote:
> > When reporting probes, driver/firmware may do its best to filter out
> > probes that would not be replied with probe-resp accordingly to the
> > P2P rules for active device configuration.
>
> This I think should be more specific. "[W]ould not be replied" is
> clearly one step, but in an environment where you actually want to
> offload the P2P probe responses that is pretty much useless. I'd rather
> say something like:
>
> ---
> When probe response offload it supported, the device should not report
> probe requests to the host that it already responded to. It must report
> (and therefore not respond to) probe requests that indicate the sending
> device is in active PBC mode (specifically, <...add more details...>).
> It may also drop invalid or malformed probe requests or ones that would
> not be replied to for other reasons.
> ---
>
> I think this would be a reasonable tradeoff. It means that if a probe
> request is actually reported, wpa_supplicant must reply to it, and we
> don't have to get into the business of having to decide whether or not
> it needs to respond.
>
> Alternatively, we could specify that the device _must_ respond if
> offload is supported, and then report it.
I like this alternative. Except, reporting is accordingly to the rx filter.
wpa_s may be not interesting in probes at all, or want only ones with PBC.
If device answer probes in firmware, this would reduce CPU wake-ups.
>
> However, we need to clearly specify this so that we don't get two
> responses, one from the device and one from wpa_s. If there's no way to
> specify this, we need to introduce a "reply already sent" flag into the
> frame reporting.
Said above translates to all-or-nothing approach w.r.t. responses:
- If device indicate probe-resp offload, it must reply all probes, supplicant
must not send probe-resp.
- If device does not indicate probe-resp offload, it should never send
probe-resp by itself; it should report all matching probes
and supplicant will generate probe-resp.
Regarding what probes to report, I'd specify relaxed requirements
for the driver:
- in non-offload case, driver must report all matching probes
(but may just report all, and wpa_s will filter)
- in offload case, must report matching probes if rx filter says so. It is not
neccessary to report all probes that device replied to.
I don't want to force firmware or driver to parse probes to detect PBC; if we
got frame to the host, from power perspective there is no much difference who
will filter it - driver or wpa_s; and wpa_s already do this parsing.
For PBC - can one specify "probes with PBC" using existing rx filter mechanism?
Also, I feel this explanation get large, it deserves separate comment block,
it is overkill for start_p2p_find comment. Maybe do it in another patch?
Thanks, Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-04 6:44 [PATCH v8] P2P find phase offload Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 6:44 ` [PATCH v8] cfg80211: " Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 10:07 ` Peer, Ilan
2013-06-04 11:24 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 12:07 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 14:03 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 14:29 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 14:35 ` Malinen, Jouni
2013-06-04 16:47 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 18:30 ` Jouni Malinen
2013-06-05 7:10 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-05 7:53 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 13:30 ` Vladimir Kondratiev [this message]
2013-06-11 12:12 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 7:46 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 8:10 ` Arend van Spriel
2013-06-05 8:18 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 8:38 ` Arend van Spriel
2013-06-05 16:26 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-05 8:12 ` Jouni Malinen
2013-06-04 12:10 ` Peer, Ilan
2013-06-04 10:43 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 6:51 ` [PATCH v8] " Johannes Berg
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=1894431.CPHELQbCIP@lx-vladimir \
--to=qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=ilan.peer@intel.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=jouni@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com \
/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.