On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 03:44:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 06:11 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:22:18PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:12 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > This quiesces devices when appropriate to ensure that > > > > regulatory domain updates take effect and avoid having > > > > devices initiate radiation when they should not. > > > > > > I'm not really sure this makes sense. > > > > > > If we're staying connected, how can we be moving far enough to go > > > through regulatory domains to have totally different rules? > > > > Don't think of what makes sense, think of the corner cases that > > could happen here, such as plugging in a card that disagrees > > with regulatory settings, and creates a conflict on DFS regions. > > One example might be someone plugging in a USB 802.11 card programmed > > for JP in say a FR 802.11 AP, assuming the AP had the USB 802.11 > > driver. Another example may be if a user provides an input with > > say 'iw reg set JP' on a FR AP. In such cases we want to stop IR, > > even if the user was dumb, we'd be respecting the regulatory settings, > > as silly as they may be. > > Think of the other way around, such as plugging in a stupid USB NIC just > to see if it works - and suddenly finding your 5 GHz connection broken > because that USB NIC said it really needed some stupid country with 2.4 > only. I'm not convinced. Actually your example is a good one that I'd use to make my case, but I can also see this being like a sledge hammer. What if we only quiesce on wdevs of types: o NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC o NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT o NL80211_IFTYPE_AP o NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_GO Luis -- 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
