On 23 May 2014 10:53, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 09:04 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: >> On 22 May 2014 16:57, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 16:07 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: >> >> Make the driver responsible for making sure it is >> >> capable of performing the switch. It might as well >> >> accept a request but then disconnect an interface >> >> if some requirements are not met. >> > >> > Care to elaborate? I'd really like to avoid this case as much as >> > possible, so just mentioning here that it would be valid seems like a >> > bad idea. >> >> Well, CSA isn't really visible to cfg80211 so you can't enforce anything now. >> >> Also since CSA requests are submitted one-by-one you already break >> interface combinations and hope: >> a) userspace sends more CSA requests soon enough to make future >> interface combination valid >> b) trust drivers deal with it either way >> >> So why bother? >> >> The most you can probably do is to prevent CSA requests from switching >> to too many different channels but you can easily guarantee this in a >> driver. > > Yeah, absolutely - it's just the fact that you're saying that it might > accept but then disconnect ... that will make people feel OK about that, > when it's really not all that desirable. Better to state that more > explicitly that it should check before :) I understand now. I'll try to emphasize this when I respin. 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
