From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Tourrilhes Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] d80211: indicate if unassociate/radio off status Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:57:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20060922005743.GB27052@bougret.hpl.hp.com> References: <44F356DF.9000000@linux.intel.com> <20060921190126.4d884c44@logostar.upir.cz> <1158865436.27546.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4512EC5C.1030807@linux.intel.com> <1158870634.5769.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4512F876.7000203@linux.intel.com> <20060922003844.6817f22b@logostar.upir.cz> <20060921225514.GA26850@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20060922004235.GA7322@instant802.com> Reply-To: jt@hpl.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jiri Benc , mabbas , Dan Williams , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from madara.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.124]:21958 "EHLO madara.hpl.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932155AbWIVA7c (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:59:32 -0400 To: Jouni Malinen Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060922004235.GA7322@instant802.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:42:35PM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:55:14PM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > > > Jean, are there any other possibilities? > > > > Yes, dropping SIOCSIWAP (set) entirely, and keep only > > SIOCGIWAP (get). > > I don't think that this would be acceptable. I should have put smileys ;-) You know that's it's not my style to rock the boat, so SIOCSIWAP won't go away anytime soon. And actually, I would be more likely to remove RTS/CTS and Frag first ;-) > > We need to be pragmatic. Very few people need to set a fixed > > BSSID. I would even venture to say that in the case of most people > > setting a fixed BSSID, it's an error and they should not do it (it > > kills roaming, which is a desirable feature). I've yet to find a card > > which scanning is broken to the point that you need to fudge the > > BSSID. > > Maybe very few _people_ use it directly, but please keep in mind that > programs like wpa_supplicant may control roaming and do it by using this > SIOCSIWAP. Yep, fully agree. And in the part of the e-mail you left out, I described this kind of need and a solution for those specific apps (catching SIOCSIWAP iwevents). Actually, I'm surprised that those apps don't make more use of the SIOCS* events. They are a good way to monitor the user and other apps doing change to the wireless config, and could be used to adapt to that. > In addition, being able to limit AP selection to one specific > BSSID can be quite useful for number of uses. As I said, I've found very few cases where the end-user need to play with those. > > There are some drivers that don't support SIOCSIWAP (set), and > > it's usually not a problem, users are not complaining about it. That's > > why I claim we could drop the (set) support. Of course, we can't do it > > because one PhD student at Berkeley need the feature ;-) > > There's more than one PhD student needing this and I would be very much > against removing it. Well, so make it one PhD student and one Linux driver hacker ;-) > Jouni Malinen Have fun... Jean