On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 20:26 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> >>> >> - netif_carrier_on(dev);>> >> ifsta->flags |= IEEE80211_STA_PREV_BSSID_SET;>> >> memcpy(ifsta->prev_bssid, sdata->u.sta.bssid, ETH_ALEN);>> >> memcpy(wrqu.ap_addr.sa_data, sdata->u.sta.bssid, ETH_ALEN);>> >> ieee80211_sta_send_associnfo(dev, ifsta);>> >> } else {>> >> + netif_carrier_off(dev);>> >> ieee80211_sta_tear_down_BA_sessions(dev, ifsta->bssid);>> >> ifsta->flags &= ~IEEE80211_STA_ASSOCIATED;>> >> - netif_carrier_off(dev);>> >>> > Maybe it should then be symmetric so that callers of the function have>> > to do it in both cases? Other than that, looks good.>>>> The sequence now is>> configure association in the driver -> carrier_on ..... carrier_off>> -> configure disassociation in the driver>>>> So this is already symmetric or I don't understand what you mean.>> Yes, the call sequence is symmetric, but I was thinking whether it would> be better API-wise to have the caller of ieee80211_set_associated() do> both carrier_on and carrier_off, instead of requiring that it calls> carrier_on but calling carrier_off for it.
I think it's actually okay to be inside and I would rather prefer tosplit this function; there is already one function calledieee80211_set_disassociated. But since we have to fix dissacosiationanway and we need to investigate it more I would first use this littlefix.ThanksTomas��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
