On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:00:55AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 17:46 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > + /* if there are multiple SSIDs on this BSSID, the frame may > > + not be for us anyway; so, check that either the frame is > > + unicast or that we are not in managed mode before > > + complaining about a missing key */ > > + if ((!is_multicast_ether_addr(hdr->addr1) || > > + rx->sdata->type != IEEE80211_IF_TYPE_STA) && > > + net_ratelimit()) > > I think this and the other patch looks good, though I'm not entirely > sure about the !STA test yet. I suppose though !STA means that we're in > some way an AP and then we're the only one sending real multicast > traffic. > > Is it worth keeping this message at all? I considered removing it, and that may be the best bet. Still, I thought it might be worth yelling about it in at least some instances. Along those lines, the !STA check was there because that was the only case I knew might not be worth complaining about. For example, an IBSS should not be reusing a BSSID for multiple SSIDs...right? Heck, maybe that isn't any crazier than doing the same thing in an infrastructure network... Well, what do you think? Leave it as-is? Leave only the !multicast check? Or remove the message completely? John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
