On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: >> I don't see why returning EBUSY is wrong, though. >> Actually, it just make the test fail immediately, instead of waiting >> indefinitely until a timeout occurs (i guess, didn't actually test it >> with the reverted patch). >> This was exactly the intended behavior, and i think it makes much more sense. > > I have no issues with EBUSY being returned for a case where an > offchannel operation would be required while on a channel that require > constant monitoring for radars. I guess it would be fine to run a > single-channel scan on that same channel in such a state, but I'm not > sure whether this code prevents that or not. (Or whether there is really > that much of a real use case for such an operation.) > See my answers to Janusz. The current code blocks any scan (including on-channel one). I guess an exception for on-channel scan can be added if needed. Eliad. -- 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
