On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 07:14 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > Hmm.. I thought of it more as a theoretical appliance of the transaction API. > > Let me re-post his example: > > > With the generic transactions you could do: > > - new chanctx2 > > - new chanctx3 > > - switch vif1 chanctx1->chanctx2 > > - switch vif2 chanctx1->chanctx3 > > - del chanctx1 > > From this I infer you can run at least 2 chanctx since that's what you > end up with. This means you can perform one of the switches separately > because only 1 chanctx was used (that's the easy part that never > really required transactions or multi-vif-chanctx-assign to begin > with). The other switch would fall into the "incompat case" where you > need to basically swap chanctx for one of the vifs in the example. > > So I fail to see why we would need to have a list of old/new contexts > in the proposed switch_vif_chanctx(), at least for now. Further down the thread there was a discussion about e.g. radar detection with the combinations, when one needs radar and the other doesn't or something, then maybe you're running into a situation where some interface combination allows more than 2 channels and the other doesn't, or such. 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
