From: Vladimir Kondratiev <qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>,
"Peer, Ilan" <ilan.peer@intel.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rodriguez, Luis" <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>,
"John W . Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] cfg80211: P2P find phase offload
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:30:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1894431.CPHELQbCIP@lx-vladimir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1370418780.8920.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 09:53:00 AM Johannes Berg wrote:
> > When reporting probes, driver/firmware may do its best to filter out
> > probes that would not be replied with probe-resp accordingly to the
> > P2P rules for active device configuration.
>
> This I think should be more specific. "[W]ould not be replied" is
> clearly one step, but in an environment where you actually want to
> offload the P2P probe responses that is pretty much useless. I'd rather
> say something like:
>
> ---
> When probe response offload it supported, the device should not report
> probe requests to the host that it already responded to. It must report
> (and therefore not respond to) probe requests that indicate the sending
> device is in active PBC mode (specifically, <...add more details...>).
> It may also drop invalid or malformed probe requests or ones that would
> not be replied to for other reasons.
> ---
>
> I think this would be a reasonable tradeoff. It means that if a probe
> request is actually reported, wpa_supplicant must reply to it, and we
> don't have to get into the business of having to decide whether or not
> it needs to respond.
>
> Alternatively, we could specify that the device _must_ respond if
> offload is supported, and then report it.
I like this alternative. Except, reporting is accordingly to the rx filter.
wpa_s may be not interesting in probes at all, or want only ones with PBC.
If device answer probes in firmware, this would reduce CPU wake-ups.
>
> However, we need to clearly specify this so that we don't get two
> responses, one from the device and one from wpa_s. If there's no way to
> specify this, we need to introduce a "reply already sent" flag into the
> frame reporting.
Said above translates to all-or-nothing approach w.r.t. responses:
- If device indicate probe-resp offload, it must reply all probes, supplicant
must not send probe-resp.
- If device does not indicate probe-resp offload, it should never send
probe-resp by itself; it should report all matching probes
and supplicant will generate probe-resp.
Regarding what probes to report, I'd specify relaxed requirements
for the driver:
- in non-offload case, driver must report all matching probes
(but may just report all, and wpa_s will filter)
- in offload case, must report matching probes if rx filter says so. It is not
neccessary to report all probes that device replied to.
I don't want to force firmware or driver to parse probes to detect PBC; if we
got frame to the host, from power perspective there is no much difference who
will filter it - driver or wpa_s; and wpa_s already do this parsing.
For PBC - can one specify "probes with PBC" using existing rx filter mechanism?
Also, I feel this explanation get large, it deserves separate comment block,
it is overkill for start_p2p_find comment. Maybe do it in another patch?
Thanks, Vladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-04 6:44 [PATCH v8] P2P find phase offload Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 6:44 ` [PATCH v8] cfg80211: " Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 10:07 ` Peer, Ilan
2013-06-04 11:24 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 12:07 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 14:03 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 14:29 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 14:35 ` Malinen, Jouni
2013-06-04 16:47 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-04 18:30 ` Jouni Malinen
2013-06-05 7:10 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-05 7:53 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 13:30 ` Vladimir Kondratiev [this message]
2013-06-11 12:12 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 7:46 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 8:10 ` Arend van Spriel
2013-06-05 8:18 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-05 8:38 ` Arend van Spriel
2013-06-05 16:26 ` Vladimir Kondratiev
2013-06-05 8:12 ` Jouni Malinen
2013-06-04 12:10 ` Peer, Ilan
2013-06-04 10:43 ` Johannes Berg
2013-06-04 6:51 ` [PATCH v8] " 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=1894431.CPHELQbCIP@lx-vladimir \
--to=qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=ilan.peer@intel.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=jouni@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com \
/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