On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 20:45 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> 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 to
> split this function; there is already one function called
> ieee80211_set_disassociated. But since we have to fix dissacosiation
> anway and we need to investigate it more I would first use this little
> fix.
Sure ok, thanks for looking into this stuff.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
