From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:58911 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751156Ab0C2Nny (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:43:54 -0400 Subject: Re: iw station del broken? From: Johannes Berg To: Marco Porsch Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <4BB0ADFA.8010205@siemens.com> References: <4BB0A16A.7080400@siemens.com> <1269867487.4131.28.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4BB0A5B1.9090003@siemens.com> <1269868155.4131.29.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4BB0ADFA.8010205@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:43:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1269870232.4131.36.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:41 +0200, Marco Porsch wrote: > That makes any scripting impossible, because it would mean a fine timing > between the ifup on the stations. Also I think you can't build complex > topologies this way. Hmm, you're probably right. > The alternative iw dev mpath set > next_hop is not useful (if it is still included > though ^^) because it sets paths hard. Means that these paths are not > changed, even if they are broken. > > Well, you're the maintainer. Your choice. > > By the way: which was the last version with 'station del' in mesh > intact? Which codeparts would have to be exchanged if i'd like to use > this further? Only iw and nl80211? Actually I think you only need to change a line in nl80211.c allowing deleting; in fact deleting is OK (and thus I think we can put a patch in adding it back) -- adding was the problem. johannes