Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] mac80211 dissasociation

Tomas Winkler
2008-09-07T23:14:09Z

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 17:24 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 01:14 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>>> >> This series should fix mac problems in disassociation
>>> >> There are two basic problems disassociation in current implementation.
>>> >> The order of steps in the dissociation flow and missing proper
>>> >> disassociation when moving from one AP to another.
>>> >
>>> > Mind if I adopt this patch series? I've done only slight modifications
>>> > so far (the int->bool thing I asked for) and have rebased all the
>>> > patches I had already posted on top of it. The arguments to
>>> > ieee80211_set_disassoc are changing a lot in my patch series anyway so
>>> > I'll just work on top of the bool/bool thing and then fix it up, ok?
>>>
>>> Don't mind just need to test them properly and update commit messages.
>>> Any suggestion how we do that?
>>
>> I've already changed the commit messages slightly, you can find my
>> versions at http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/all/LATEST/
>> (disassoc-part-{1,2,3}.patch). If you want to test those by themselves
>> that would probably be useful, and if you want to test my complete mlme
>> rewrite I'd appreciate that too, but I'm not done rebasing yet :)
>
> Okay I'll take first the 3 patches then now and I will check the
> rewrites after that .

In general it works but I didn't test all the corner cases yet. Not
sure this is related but.
why I'm hitting unathorized prot messag for subif_start_xmit.
Shouldn't carrier_off(stada->dev) stop the queue? I haven't seen this
before.

Thanks
Tomas

> Thanks
> Tomas
>