On 03/07/2016 11:35 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:02:39AM +0100, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: >> We have been using this modification (slightly updated) in our systems for half a >> year now and it works as expected. I'll update the RFC and re-post it as patch. > > Thanks. > >> While at that, I could add a dedicated state HAPD_IFACE_NOP instead of combining >> state and cac_started as NOP indication. Would help readability a bit. Preference? > > If it does not make the changes significantly more complex, it'd > probable be a good idea to make it clearer why the "extra" wait is > ongoing. > After double-checking, it would add readability at one place but complicate it on other where HAPD_IFACE_DFS is handled. I left it as is and added a comment for clarification. _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
