Re: Missing link quality with wireless-testing

[Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:57:39AM +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > Would setting qual->updated |= IW_QUAL_QUAL_INVALID; work for you?  If
> > some app doesn't handle that, it's totally, completely broken.
> 
> does wpa_supplicant handle this value correctly? I actually never
> checked that.

No, it doesn't use qual->updated at all. Then again, neither does it
rely on qual->qual either. The signal level (qual->level) is used first
and only if that is not available, qual->qual will be used in sorting
the results.

> However I think it is bad practice to abandon a value that has been
> previously set by mac80211 and remove it without any further warning. If
> a driver never set the value before it is a different story than
> mac80211 deciding to not set it any more from one kernel version to
> another one.

It would be interesting to know which applications depend only on
qual->qual values being there and cannot use qual->level. Anyway, I
would agree that it would be reasonable to fill in something in the
qual->qual field for now. It should be enough to do this in the wext
compat code (i.e., not changing anything in mac80211 and only touching
#ifdef CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT blocks in net/wireless/scan.c). This would
provide somewhat useful value for applications that depend on a value
that was not really guaranteed to be there in the first place. I think I
would include the IW_QUAL_QUAL_INVALID flag anyway and just target the
broken apps with this workaround.

-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA