On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:42 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ? Emmanuel already commented on this, basically the error codes are all for "I couldn't transmit this frame", so here we have "I couldn't transmit this frame because it was on a _passive_ channel and there was _no rx_ yet." > > I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in > > iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should > > introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour? > > I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues > and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be > received? Good question, do we get stuck? I was assuming we'd time out, but maybe that's not the case? > Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965, > it's simpler workaround ? Sure, but maybe that loses other semantics that you want? And anyway it's not complete. If you have a very long beacon interval (say 1 second) then this could still lead to all probe/auth retries going out inbetween two beacons since the timeout is just 3*100ms. johannes -- 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
