From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35453 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754962Ab0JNIkl (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:40:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:42:38 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Johannes Berg , Wey-Yi Guy Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: one less commit_rxon while scan Message-ID: <20101014084238.GB2286@redhat.com> References: <1286977193-12144-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1286977193-12144-2-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1286977193-12144-2-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:39:53PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Almost anywhere in the code we avoid committing rxon while performing > scan, and make rxon commit when scan complete. Some current patches do > not follow that rule. We have that problem at least in > iwlagn_confirue_filter(), iwl_update_chain_flags() and > iwl_bg_bt_full_concurrency(). Any comments about iwl_update_chain_flags, iwl_bg_bt_full_concurrency ? I would like to know how to deal with them, should we deffer commit_rxon to scan complete, or cancel the scan. Or maybe this is no problem at all, because in example committing rxon vs scan was problem of older firmware? Stanislaw