From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:48002 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755504Ab1BIOWk (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:22:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4D52A328.3010009@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:22:32 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arend van Spriel CC: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless Subject: Re: implicit band switch or not References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/09/2011 04:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > With our mac80211-based driver I was associated with 5GHz AP and ran into an assert. Investigating this I found that a software scan was initiated and our > driver got a probe request from mac80211 to be transmitted. However, it turned out that the transmit rate was a 2GHz rate and our driver was still configured to > 5GHz band. The ieee80211_tx_info also contained the band and indeed that was for 2GHz. Given the comment for the band attribute I am wondering whether we should > a band switch implicitly or not: > > * @band: the band to transmit on (use for checking for races) > > Any suggestions? Are we have a race condition here? What kernel revision was this happening in? I just changed the scanning logic a bit in wireless-testing...I don't think I would have caused this, but it's possible. Thanks, Ben > > Gr. AvS -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com