On 15 January 2014 14:29, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:28 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: >> On 15 January 2014 14:19, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 13:04 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: >> >> For CSA to be safe it needs to be treated the same >> >> way as radar detection, scanning and remain on >> >> channel - all of those (including CSA) must be >> >> mutually exclusive. >> > >> > This I don't understand. Why couldn't you do a remain-on(some >> > other)-channel or scan while counting down the beacons? >> >> My concern is software offchannel (be it scan or roc) involves channel >> context switches. I wanted to avoid any channel context mangling while >> CSA is in progress. Does that make sense to you? > > No, I don't really get it. Why? Hmm. Perhaps I was a little overcautious. Offchannel stuff doesn't use channel contexts at all, right? It recalculates channel in hw_config() and doesn't touch channel contexts so it should be safe. Also, I just noticed the patch contains some code that doesn't belong here (vif_use_channel is protected with the csa_is_active() -- this should be in the final commit). And this is probably the only part that is necessary - to prevent anything new from binding to a channel context that is being used for CSA. Michał -- 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
