From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:39214 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752608Ab2DAUxq (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:53:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4F78C056.4080307@candelatech.com> (sfid-20120401_225349_388622_92AB641F) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: Support on-channel scan option. References: <1333233041-3246-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (sfid-20120401_003057_469452_61057064) <1333305916.3703.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4F78BE67.8090609@candelatech.com> <1333313357.22977.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1333313357.22977.0.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/01/2012 01:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 13:45 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 04/01/2012 11:45 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 15:30 -0700, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, >>>> struct cfg80211_scan_request *req) >>>> @@ -438,6 +461,33 @@ static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, >>>> local->scan_req = req; >>>> local->scan_sdata = sdata; >>>> >>>> + /* If we are scanning only on the current channel, then >>>> + * we do not need to stop normal activities >>>> + */ >>>> + if ((req->n_channels == 1)&& >>>> + (req->channels[0]->center_freq == >>>> + local->hw.conf.channel->center_freq)) { >>> ... >>>> + return 0; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> if (local->ops->hw_scan) >>>> __set_bit(SCAN_HW_SCANNING,&local->scanning); >>> >>> Clearly, you're joking. >> >> That is worthless feedback and gives me no idea what you >> think should be fixed about it. >> >> If you hate the entire idea of optimizing scanning on channel, >> just say so plainly. > > I did quote only the relevant pieces -- you're completely ignoring hw > scan. Why should I care about this patch then? Well, I was hoping that a simple scan-on-channel wouldn't need to care about the hw-scan logic. But, I can change it so that the optimized scan-on-channel only is supported on NICs that do software-scan? The patch does have a small bug in the scan-complete logic, but aside from that, it appears to work on ath9k. Thanks, Ben > > johannes > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com