On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:42 +0200, Luca Coelho wrote: > > Nothing! As far as that's permissible. Ilan's patchset might change > > that, but that's mostly a regulatory thing, rather than a CSA thing. > > Ah, you have some insider information! :P Not really, he posted those patches ... :) > Sure, but how does the userspace know that the other interface *needs* > to be moved, regardless of regulatory problems? It needs to know that > there are not enough contexts to keep the interfaces in different > channels... It has all that information, it can know the channels, channel contexts, etc. > > > ...and, if the userspace doesn't react, we disconnect the GO. I think > > > it's safer this way for the GO-follows-STA case. > > > > That would be a consequence of Ilan's work, yes. > > Okay, if that's going to be guaranteed, I'm fine with it. Not yet, but Ilan probably needs to take care of that. > > This typically won't happen, since userspace will do something else, but > > we need to have some default policy. I don't think anything else makes > > much sense? > > My point was that a CSA could have been triggered due to regulatory > (which the AP/GO is monitoring), so the safest would be to move everyone > out of the channel by default. But the kernel can't do that, it needs userspace to do it. And if the CSA was triggered due to regulatory, then the GO that follow the client can only be on this channel with Ilan's work, otherwise it's allowed to be standalone there. johannes -- 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
