On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:52:32PM +0800, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On 20/11/15 18:49, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -599,7 +599,9 @@ static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct
> >> ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> >>
> >> if ((req->channels[0]->flags &
> >> IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR) ||
> >> - !req->n_ssids) {
> >> + !req->n_ssids ||
> >> + ((req->channels[0]->flags &
> >> IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR) &&
> >> + (req->flags &
> >> NL80211_SCAN_FLAG_PASSIVE_RADAR))) {
> >> next_delay = IEEE80211_PASSIVE_CHANNEL_TIME;
> >>
> >
> > I don't really see any circumstances under which it's valid to actively
> > scan radar channels ... seems like we should do this unconditionally?
>
> I think it would be reasonable only if the target channel is the one we
> are using and we have done CSA. But when scanning non-operative channels
> I don't think this could work.
>
> As discussed on IRC I'd rather go for passively scanning any DFS channel.
>
> Cheers,
Hey Johannes,
this has been sleeping for a while.. :)
Would it make sense to rebase it and resubmit it for inclusion?
Given the previous discussion we could change the logic as:
* always passively scan DFS channels that are not usable
* always actively scan DFS channels that are usable (i.e. CAC was performed).
How does it sound? this would totally avoid the use of the switch in the scan
command.
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
