On Wed, 2024-09-18 at 07:08 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 9/18/24 05:39, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> > From: Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Most of the logic to reject BSSs during transition has been moved into
> > wnm_is_bss_excluded. In addition to this, since commit 67bf89f55442
> > ("WNM: Choose the best available BSS, not just the first one") we
> > will simply choose the BSS with the best throughput.
>
> It looks like you are dropping the logic that will keep it from roaming
> unless the change in estimated throughput is relatively large?
>
> [snip]
>
> > - if ((!target->est_throughput && !bss_in_list->est_throughput) ||
> > - (target->est_throughput > bss_in_list->est_throught &&
> > - target->est_throughput - bss_in_list->est_throughput
> > >
> > - bss_in_list->est_throughput >> 4)) {
> > - /* It is more than 100/16 percent better, so switch. */
> > - return target;
> > - }
>
> Or is that somehow handled in the current code elsewhere?
No, I believe it does not do anything since the commit I mentioned.
If bss_in_list is set and it is better, then it will have already been
sorted to the start by find_better_target.
If bss_in_list is not set, then obviously the code will not be reached
and the found target is used.
And yes, that does mean that we are effectively ignoring the
order/precedence value in the neighbor report (apart from a zero
preference to mean "disallowed"). But, I do not think it is a change in
behaviour at this point in time.
Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
