From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kalle Valo Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:37:43 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: don't advertise we want monitor vif In-Reply-To: <20855.64445.611540.12468@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (Sujith Manoharan's message of "Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:05:25 +0530") References: <1366798632-20517-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <1366798632-20517-3-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <20855.50080.778515.188903@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <5177CD83.4030900@tieto.com> <20855.64445.611540.12468@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <8738udvj20.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Hi, Sujith Manoharan writes: > Michal Kazior wrote: > >> Considering how "stable" monitor mode is perhaps we should start >> monitor vdev only when there's the monitor vif present? (right now >> we can start it without the vdev). If so then we drop this patch. >> And we probably also should forbid packet injection, at least until >> FW gets this sorted out. > > Well, the requirement is that we *need* a VDEV for monitor mode and > this is precisely this flag is for. So I don't quite see how removing it > fixes anything ? So what's the conclusion? What should we do with this patchset? -- Kalle Valo