Re: [RFC PATCHv3 1/1] mac80211: Add support connection monitor in hardware

[Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@nokia.com>]

On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 06:06 +0100, Oikarinen Juuso (Nokia-D/Tampere)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 17:15 +0100, ext Johannes Berg wrote:
> > >  void ieee80211_beacon_loss_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata =
> > >  		container_of(work, struct ieee80211_sub_if_data,
> > >  			     u.mgd.beacon_loss_work);
> > >  
> > > -	ieee80211_mgd_probe_ap(sdata, true);
> > > +	if (sdata->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR)
> > > +		ieee80211_beacon_loss_disassoc(sdata);
> > > +	else
> > > +		ieee80211_mgd_probe_ap(sdata, true);
> > >  }
> > 
> > And I'm actually wondering now if using the same API is a good idea.
> > Yes, it makes some sense, but it's quite different yet? Maybe we should
> > have something like this:
> > 
> > static inline void ieee80211_beacon_loss(hw, vif)
> > {
> > 	WARN_ON(hw->flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR);
> > 	__ieee80211_beacon_connection_loss(vif);
> > }
> > 
> > static inline void ieee80211_connection_loss(hw, vif)
> > {
> > 	WARN_ON(!(hw->flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR));
> > 	__ieee80211_beacon_connection_loss(vif);
> > }
> > 
> > to make at least the external API easier to understand?
> 
> We actually had a debate about this with Luciano Coelho, and I opted for
> a separate API, and Luca opted for just adding a flag to the existing
> beacon loss function. To be noted: Luca, two against one now! ;)

Heh, damn you guys! Lots of things have changed since Juuso and I
discussed this, so I'm not 100% sure that my previous comment about the
flag really still applies. :P

My point at the time was that the driver should inform mac80211 that it
has tried to send probe_reqs automatically but they were not answered,
and let mac80211 itself decide whether that meant a connection loss or
not.


-- 
Luca, the one who won't admit losing the discussion. :)