On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 18:23 +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> Hey Luca,
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > More changes, hopefully the last ones for this series. ;)
> >
> > I have hacked wpa_supplicant to support CSA in IBSS, so I could test
> > it too. I created some ma80211_hwsim testcases on top of this. The
> > tests now pass, though I get some semi-random WARNs [1] when using 3
> > stations. It seems to be a race condition and it doesn't seem to be
> > related to this series, so I think we should address it separately
> > (Simon, hint! ;).
> >
> > I have also created some basic BSS CSA test cases for mac80211_hwsim.
> > The tests pass, except when I try count < 2, which is expected, since
> > we did not implement the CSA action frame in BSS mode.
> >
> > I'll upstream the BSS CSA test cases soon. The IBSS test cases still
> > need to be cleaned up (actually they're worthless without the IBSS CSA
> > support in wpa_supplicant, which needs to be cleaned up). If someone
> > is interested in this, let me know and I can send them
> > "without-warranty of any kind". ;)
> >
> > Please review and test!
>
> Patches look good to me and worked fine in my test environment. Everything as
> expected for CSA counts of 0, 1, 2 and 10, no warnings or weird behaviour.
> I've tested with two stations in IBSS mode using ath9k.
>
> So, apart from that function name issue, feel free to add for Patch 1,2 and 5:
>
> Acked-by/Tested-by: Simon Wunderlich <sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you very much for all your help, Simon!
> I'll try to reproduce the issue you were seeing when these testcases/wpa_s
> implementation are upstream (or patches are available). I didn't see the
> problem on a first glance, but the warning is not critical (basically the CSA
> will fail), so I guess it's OK to fix it soon[tm].
Yeah, let's fix it separately. Probably best to wait until after the
holidays, since I'm having vacations already next week.
--
Cheers,
Luca.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
