On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 21:13 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > On 18-7-2016 20:56, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 19:23 +0530, Purushottam Kushwaha wrote: > > > Driver may allow support for different beacon interval on virtual > > > interfaces. > > > Allow if such support is advertised by driver. This adds new > > > ext_feature as NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_DIFF_BEACON_INTERVAL. > > > > We have NL80211_IFACE_COMB_STA_AP_BI_MATCH in interface > > combinations, > > perhaps it would make sense to also put this flag there? > > Hi Johannes, > > Was looking at the same thing. The description of that flag was a bit > unclear to me. > > """ > * @beacon_int_infra_match: In this combination, the beacon intervals > * between infrastructure and AP types must match. This is > required > * only in special cases. > """ > > It is not explicitly stated but it implies the STA vif is connected, > right. Yes. Forget this flag. I don't think any driver sets it - it was a hack for iwldvm. I also don't think any userspace cares about it, and it likely never really worked. What if the STA vif reconnects anyway? I was merely pointing this out wrt. the grouping and where to put something new. > Probably going off-topic here, but I am also wondering about the > use-case of the above patch. I have been looking at M-BSS. Toward > user-space these are AP interfaces, but like described in > hostapd.conf > example a number of AP configuration items are required to be equal. > Now > we also have chipsets with two 802.11 cores and on each an AP could > be > setup with independent beacon interval. So to make the distinction > would > it make sense to introduce MBSS_AP iftype? Or does AP_VLAN cover the > MBSS use-case? > I don't think AP_VLAN does, but isn't a mesh portal simply a mesh point interface and an AP interface? 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
