From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([88.198.39.176]:58788 "EHLO ds10.nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753483Ab0IJWyR (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:54:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4C8AB717.5030600@openwrt.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:54:15 -0700 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Greear CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [virtual-sta 3/3] mac80211: Allow multiple STA on same BSS. References: <1284156298-15863-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1284156298-15863-3-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <4C8AB4BD.5090204@openwrt.org> <4C8AB60A.2060409@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: <4C8AB60A.2060409@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-09-10 3:49 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > On 09/10/2010 03:44 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2010-09-10 3:04 PM, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >>> From: Ben Greear >>> >>> When adding an STA, the old code checked if there was already >>> an STA with the same BSS. Instead, check to see if there is >>> exactly the same STA in order to allow multiple STA to be >>> associated with the same AP. >> I think that's misleading. sta_info_get_bss does not check if there is a >> STA with the same BSS. Like sta_info_get it looks for a STA with the >> given address, but unlike sta_info_get, it also accepts it if it's on a >> different interface than the provided sdata, but part of the same BSS as >> the sdata's. >> Because of that, this change seems bogus to me. > > W/out this change, I cannot get a second STA to associate with > the AP because that code returns EBUSY, because the > first STA and second STA point to the same bss. > > There could be a better way to do what I'm trying to do, > but that one-line patch made it work for me. I'll be happy > to try alternative suggestions. This patch will most likely break other stuff. the sta_info_get -> sta_info_get_bss change was added for a reason. I can look into it later to see what the reason was, but I don't think your change can go in without further review. - Felix