From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:10227 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753520Ab2IJPMh (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:12:37 -0400 Message-ID: <504E035B.7050106@qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20120910_171240_802190_DAC02532) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:42:27 +0530 From: Pandiyarajan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: , Subject: Re: [RFC] cfg80211/nl80211: Notify connection request failure in AP mode References: <1347274408-11949-1-git-send-email-c_ppitch@qca.qualcomm.com> <1347276502.4272.22.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1347276502.4272.22.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Johannes, On Monday 10 September 2012 04:58 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 16:23 +0530, Pandiyarajan Pitchaimuthu wrote: >> In AP mode, when a station requests connection to an AP and if the >> request is failed for particular reason, userspace is notified about the >> failure through NL80211_CMD_CONN_FAILED command. Reason for the failure >> is sent through the attribute NL80211_ATTR_CONN_FAILED_REASON. > Why would userspace care? It would be useful to inform the userspace that the driver/firmware's limitation of maintaining the maximum number of connected clients is reached. Without this the user may not be clear about why another client cannot be added. Also, further enhancements/decisions can be made based on this event. >> +/* AP mode - sta's connection request failed reasons */ >> +enum nl80211_connect_failed_reason { >> + NL80211_CONN_FAIL_MAX_CLIENTS = 1, >> + NL80211_CONN_FAIL_BLOCKED_CLIENT = 2, >> +}; > Why number explicitly? Thanks. Will change it to have the default value. >> + * Whenever a station tries to connect to an AP and if the station >> + * could not connect to the AP for some reason, this function is called. > It's not really "for some reason", it's "because the AP rejected it for > some reason"... You're not handling other cases anyway. > > johannes > Sure. Will change the comment. Pandiyarajan.P