On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:15:50PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:47 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > Errors in sending nullfunc or probe request frames during off-channel > > operation may have undesirable consequences, e.g. failure to set > > powersave at the AP. Add error handling for failures to transmit these > > frames. In the case of a nullfunc failure, fail to go off-channel and > > return an error to userspace. In the case of a failed probe request, > > abort the scan. > > That latter part seems excessive? Maybe increase the time to use a > passive scan? But if there are multiple scan requests ... > > Is all of this really worth the effort? The driver queues should be > empty after the flush, after all, and the driver doesn't return any TX > status. So what can really happen? Hmm, yeah, maybe it is a bit excessive. The idea of falling back to a passive scan is interesting though. I'll rip out the scan abort stuff for v2 and think about doing the passive scan fallback as a future enhancement. Seth -- 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
