On 29 October 2013 11:25, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Janusz Dziedzic
> <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> After going throught the Channel Availability Check (CAC)
>> required by DFS enable beaconing. Channels that have gone
>> through a CAC will be in the NL80211_DFS_AVAILABLE.
>> Without this change APs don't start beaconing after
>> successful CAC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> One flag could be used in the future IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR.
>>
>> net/wireless/chan.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/wireless/chan.c b/net/wireless/chan.c
>> index a6f5c4c..205acf2 100644
>> --- a/net/wireless/chan.c
>> +++ b/net/wireless/chan.c
>> @@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ static bool cfg80211_secondary_chans_ok(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> {
>> struct ieee80211_channel *c;
>> u32 freq, start_freq, end_freq;
>> + u32 ignore_flags;
>>
>> start_freq = cfg80211_get_start_freq(center_freq, bandwidth);
>> end_freq = cfg80211_get_end_freq(center_freq, bandwidth);
>> @@ -441,13 +442,24 @@ static bool cfg80211_secondary_chans_ok(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> if (!c)
>> return false;
>>
>> + ignore_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR;
>> +
>> /* check for radar flags */
>> - if ((prohibited_flags & c->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR) &&
>> - (c->dfs_state != NL80211_DFS_AVAILABLE))
>> - return false;
>> + if (prohibited_flags & c->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR) {
>> + if (c->dfs_state != NL80211_DFS_AVAILABLE)
>> + return false;
>> + /*
>> + * If DFS is required we should check only
>> + * c->dfs_state == NL80211_DFS_AVAILABLE and
>> + * ignore IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS and
>> + * IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN flags
>> + */
>> + ignore_flags |= IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS |
>> + IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN;
>> + }
>>
>> /* check for the other flags */
>> - if (c->flags & prohibited_flags & ~IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR)
>> + if (c->flags & prohibited_flags & ~ignore_flags)
>> return false;
>> }
>
> How do we know that prohibited_flags won't have IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR
> or IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS set?
>
> Also why is IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IBSS used and not IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR
> instead? I sent patches to help clarify this situation around usage of
> both no-ibss and active scan flags, by merging them to no-ir. I'm not
> sure of the status of those patches going in.
>
I am not sure. Even without my patch seems IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR is
added to prohibited_flags and have different meaning (I think).
In orginal code we have:
if (c->flags & prohibited_flags & ~IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR)
So, we skiping CHAN_RADAR anyway? I am not sure we should change
prohibited_flags to different name or stop skiping CHAN_RADAR and
modify upper layer - cfg80211_reg_can_beacon() in such case.
BR
Janusz
--
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
