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
next prev parent 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).