On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 10:21 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > > No, sent the mail just before going to sleep :) I'll review your patch > > and adopt it. Guess I get to rebase my ~70ish patches to after it > > then ;) > > Hopefully it's just fuzz... In fact, it's commutative, not even as much as line offsets. :) > Well because our frames aren't targeted at any real MAC I'm not sure the > AP will buffer them for devices in PS or not. Maybe the client having > an interface up in hardware promisc should be a sign for it to not go > into PS mode anyway? Well, for one, the PS code is only relevant if we're ourselves operating in IBSS or AP mode. If we're operating in AP/IBSS mode we'll also automatically buffer your injected multicast frames for after the DTIM beacon. I think we should just buffer injected unicast frames as well, it won't hurt your use case (multicast destination) and makes things more consistent. > For sure things will be much better and more consistent if we can inject > down unassociated interfaces reliably, so this is a nice move. Well, no, that's unrelated, and it's a bug in iwlwifi that it craps out over that ;) johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
