From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"sw@simonwunderlich.de" <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] mac80211: only set CSA beacon when at least one beacon must be transmitted
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:31:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1383737505.14307.37.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383737255.4256.34.camel@porter.coelho.fi>
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 11:28 +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote:
> In terms of the order of calls, the difference is that in the past we
> had this:
>
> 1. Set CSA beacon;
> 2. When count reaches 1, the driver calls ieee80211_csa_finish();
> 3. We call drv_change_chanctx();
> 4. Set new channel beacon.
>
> (This continues to be the case with my patch when count > 1)
>
> With my patch, if count <= 1, we do this instead:
>
> 1. Call drv_change_chanctx();
> 2. Set new channel beacon.
>
> The main problem without my patch is that the driver shouldn't beacon
> with the CSA element when the count starts <= 1, so it won't have a
> chance to check if the count reached 1 to call ieee80211_csa_finish().
I think the other difference is that one calls
drv_channel_switch_beacon()? The driver might do some channel
preparations there, though I guess you can audit all the drivers (well,
one ...) :)
But that'd need some more documentation, otherwise I'd guess people
would start to rely on drv_channel_switch_beacon() and it would mostly
work - hence my question of whether it makes sense to refuse it at all
in the case of <=1.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-06 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-05 20:54 [RFC v2 1/2] mac80211: don't transmit beacon with CSA count 0 Luciano Coelho
2013-11-05 20:54 ` [RFC v2 2/2] mac80211: only set CSA beacon when at least one beacon must be transmitted Luciano Coelho
2013-11-06 10:51 ` Johannes Berg
2013-11-06 11:28 ` Coelho, Luciano
2013-11-06 11:31 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2013-11-06 11:52 ` Coelho, Luciano
2013-11-06 12:06 ` Johannes Berg
2013-11-06 11:47 ` Simon Wunderlich
2013-11-06 12:03 ` Coelho, Luciano
2013-11-06 12:06 ` Johannes Berg
2013-11-06 12:22 ` Coelho, Luciano
2013-11-06 12:36 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1383737505.14307.37.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luciano.coelho@intel.com \
--cc=sw@simonwunderlich.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox