Hi, > > > If you do care about this being more granular then you should check > > > *which* interface is scanning, and then you can still switch the > > > MAC > > > address for *other* interfaces - but I'd still argue it should be > > > independent of interface type. > > So yes these can scan, but this should be covered by the > netif_carrier_ok check which is done first. Not sure what you mean by that. You could have two interfaces, one which is scanning right now, right? And then theoretically you don't care about the other one - it *should* be OK to remove/re-add (with new MAC address) the one that *isn't* scanning, right? But we don't have that granularity here for anything - you're just checking "sdata->local->something", and by going from sdata to local you've now checked the whole NIC, not just a single interface on that NIC. Which is fine, no complaint from me, just in that case you end up failing when really there isn't much need to fail. In fact, in a case like this, actually clearing IFF_UP, changing address and setting IFF_UP would work, concurrently with another interface scanning. > We can just remove the > switch entirely, but the roc_list/scanning check only matters for > station/p2p_client so checking for the other interface types is kinda > pointless and redundant. But it's also completely confusing to do it this way because you go from "sdata" to "local", and at that point the data that you're working on is no longer specific to that one interface, it's actually for the whole NIC. Basically what I'm saying is this: it's confusing and makes no sense to do something like if (this_is_a_certain_netdev_type) check_some_global_data(); > Also I am not sure what you mean by *which* interface. This function is > called on a single interface, so checking what other interfaces are > doing seems strange... My point exactly - but that's what you're doing here in the code. Now I think perhaps without even realizing? johannes
