linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>
Cc: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:46:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1483616763.4394.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH7ZN-zenL8SsqUAzMH5-Hb1RmUDDwgqqUKWEbPX=qaPV7e3TA@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20170104_213238_407654_9812F7E4)


> If we go with approach to use parameters and let FW or MAC80211
> layer to decide what type of scan to do, 

At that point though, is it even meaningful to ask "what type of scan
is this"? Or put another way - what does "scan type" even mean?

> then in general the only
> difference between different types of scan is what to do with result:
> - Normal scan: ssid list, channel list, dwell params, etc...
> - Sched scan: ssid list, channel list, interval
> - BSSID scan: bssid list, channel list, interval
> Action: Report when suitable results are found (in case of Normal
> scan it will be at the end of scan)
> 
> - Roaming / Autojoin: ssid list, channel list, interval
> Action: Connect when suitable results are found
> 
> - History scan: bssid list, channel list, interval
> Action: Report when buffer is full / almost full

Exactly. But the type of action is something set by the entity that
triggered the scan, right? normal and roam would be equivalent anyway,
no? wpa_supplicant would make a decision to connect - after the results
are coming in.

Oh, then again, maybe you're thinking of full-MAC devices - does a
roam/autojoin scan really already *imply* a new connection? And if so,
do we have to do it that way, or can we remove that type of action and
make a connection decision in higher layers, so it's really the same as
"report when suitable results are found"?

> So we can literally distinguish scan types by final action.

Actually I think I'm just misinterpreting your wording - you mean that
we can use the different final actions for the different scan types,
not that we should actually say - in driver/firmware/... - "this is a
history scan because the action is to report buffer full", right?

> And for History scan we need new get_scan_results() command.
> 
> Does it sound reasonable?

I think it does.

There's a bit more complication wrt. the level of detail in results
though - sometimes the result may include all IEs (normal/sched scan),
sometimes it may not ("history scan") - are we sure we really only need
one new get_scan_results()?

johannes

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-05 11:46 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 [this message]
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
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=1483616763.4394.8.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).