From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:56411 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907Ab0I2RD5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:03:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mac80211: Allow scanning single channel if other VIF is associated. From: Johannes Berg To: Ben Greear Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4CA3704E.1070702@candelatech.com> References: <1285708650-21858-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1285743733.3756.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4CA35BAB.8090701@candelatech.com> <1285778901.3756.25.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4CA3704E.1070702@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:03:56 +0200 Message-ID: <1285779836.3756.26.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:58 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> + if (!(wk->chan == local->scan_channel || > >> + (wk->chan == local->oper_channel&& > > > > I don't think work items will ever run while scanning? And also, this > > might need to check the channel type as well, which isn't quite > > necessary right now (since no works requires HT channels) but would seem > > cleaner. > > Just in case work ever does happen when scanning, I think we should > leave this check in. I think we'll have bigger problems if that happens, since scanning will switch away from the channel again quickly, likely before the work finishes. I'd rather add an assertion that it _doesn't_ happen, I think. johannes