From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:59348 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755408Ab1EEQWh (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2011 12:22:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4DC2CEC0.2030302@candelatech.com> (sfid-20110505_182242_207814_DB190F75) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:22:24 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: Luciano Coelho , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cfg80211/nl80211: add interval attribute for scheduled scans References: <1304600420-24227-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com> <1304600420-24227-4-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com> <4DC2B78E.3000205@candelatech.com> <1304607108.3594.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4DC2B941.6@candelatech.com> <1304607500.3594.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20110505_165557_965402_0D829BAA) <1304607552.3594.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1304610524.12586.403.camel@cumari> <1304610694.12586.404.camel@cumari> <1304612001.3594.10.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1304612001.3594.10.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/05/2011 09:13 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:51 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > >>>>> But this is a new feature, and a new command, so I don't quite >>>>> understand why an application would think it can send it without the >>>>> interval? >>>> >>>> Oh wait, I guess you're right, or this should just be part of patch 1 >>>> instead so we never have the feature without the requirement to have the >>>> interval given. >>> >>> Yeah, I could squish this with the previous patch (1/3), but I just >>> reckoned that patch was getting too big, so I decided to make a separate >>> one. >>> >>> If this whole patch series is taken at the same time, I guess there >>> won't be backwards compatibility problems (except for bisecting, >>> maybe?). >>> >>> Anyways, I'll leave it as your choice. Squishing the patch is easy >>> enough. ;) >> >> Ah, and one more thought... There's no driver implementing this at this >> point, so is there anything to really worry about? > > Yeah, good point, no big deal. We can keep it -- I just didn't even > understand why Ben thought it would not be compatible but it makes sense > if you just look at the patch by itself. I was a bit confused..didn't realize it was a new command that had just been added. I thought someone was adding a required member to the existing scan logic. So, I have no complaints. Thanks, Ben > > johannes -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com