linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nl80211: allow multiple active scheduled scan requests
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:30:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1483525836.7312.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ad9a594-29b3-8c52-a88f-c4186511fe4f@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170104_112053_991115_3F397A44)

> However, we need to prefer something
> > -
> > always preferring the new sched scan could lead to bounces, so we
> > can
> > prefer (1) existing, (2) legacy-single type or (3) new-multi type,
> > but
> > not (4) new sched scan.
> 
> Not sure I can follow. What is the difference between (1) and (2). 

(1) would never cancel any existing sched scan, regardless of type
(legacy vs. multi-capable)

(2) would cancel an existing sched scan (in favour of a new one) if the
existing one is multi-capable

(3) would cancel an existing sched scan (in favour of a new one) if the
existing one is legacy type

> Also
> what do you consider (4) new sched scan. You mean the additional
> parameterization of the scheduled scan?

No, I just meant any new request.

> > I think preferring the existing would probably be best, i.e. refuse
> > legacy if any sched scan is running, and refuse multi if legacy is
> > running?
> 
> Whatever the response above, I can understand this and it seems most
> straightforward. So I tend agree this is our best option although
> maybe for the wrong reason.

:)

johannes

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-04 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-16 22:47 [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal dimitrysh
2016-11-17 20:56 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-18 23:53   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-22  7:24 ` Luca Coelho
2016-11-22 17:29   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-22 20:41     ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-22 20:54       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-23  8:43         ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-28 19:25           ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-05 14:28 ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-05 18:32   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-07  6:44     ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-07 18:39       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-07 20:51         ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-08 22:35           ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-09 11:10             ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:06             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-03 20:45               ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-04 13:28                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-04 20:32                   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-05 11:46                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 13:39                       ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-05 13:44                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 19:59                           ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-09 10:48                             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:07                               ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-11 13:14                                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 20:45                       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-09 10:45                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 11:19                           ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:04         ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-21 10:20           ` [RFC] nl80211: allow multiple active scheduled scan requests Arend van Spriel
2017-01-02 10:44             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-03 12:25               ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-04  9:59                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-04 10:20                   ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-04 10:30                     ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-01-04 10:34                       ` Arend Van Spriel

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=1483525836.7312.1.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com \
    --cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).