On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:06 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 12:03 +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote:
>
> > > Even if we don't allow count <=1 from userspace as Johannes suggested,
> >
> > Ah, I had misunderstood Johannes. I thought he meant to reject the
> > patch. :P
> >
> > Rejecting count <= 1 could be a temporary solution until we implement
> > the action frames properly. Unless we decide that the action frames
> > should be handled in userspace as you proposed.
>
> Well even then - the question is who would ever want to use and test
> count<=1?
I guess the reason to have this is when you must evacuate the channel
immediately, so you transmit the action frame and jump out. If your
beacon interval is long (for whatever reason), waiting for the next TBTT
to announce the CSA may take longer than the time required to stop
transmitting.
Also, in a "stop transmitting immediately" scenario, using an action
frame with count <= 1 helps reduce data hiccups that would happen if
count > 1 and the channel switch mode is "don't transmit".
--
Luca.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
