From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:14873 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751873Ab0JNPza (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:55:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: one less commit_rxon while scan From: "Guy, Wey-Yi" To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20101014084238.GB2286@redhat.com> References: <1286977193-12144-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1286977193-12144-2-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <20101014084238.GB2286@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:54:39 -0700 Message-Id: <1287071679.13051.10.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Stanislaw, On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:42 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:39:53PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > Almost anywhere in the code we avoid committing rxon while performing > > scan, and make rxon commit when scan complete. Some current patches do > > not follow that rule. We have that problem at least in > > iwlagn_confirue_filter(), iwl_update_chain_flags() and > > iwl_bg_bt_full_concurrency(). > > Any comments about iwl_update_chain_flags, iwl_bg_bt_full_concurrency ? > I would like to know how to deal with them, should we deffer commit_rxon > to scan complete, or cancel the scan. Or maybe this is no problem > at all, because in example committing rxon vs scan was problem of > older firmware? > iwl_update_chain_flags() is used when PSP mode change, iwl_bg_bt_full_concurrency() is used only for BT coex and in BT full concurrency mode. For both case, I do not see any reason we can not defer to scan complete. Thanks Wey