On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:20 +0300, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:01:20PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > I've found out, that NL80211_CMD_GET_WIPHY reply doesn't fit into a message > > > socket buffer now. Used driver is ath5k. > > > > Ok, humm, I have no idea what to do. I guess we'll somehow have to make > > it possible to split it up on band or channel boundaries. But since > > those are nested it seems somewhat weird to me. Any ideas? > > Isn't ath5k reporting quite a large set of channels that would never > really be used? 26 channels on 2.4 GHz and 194(huh!) on 5 GHz.. First > workaround could be to just limit those to somewhat more common set of > channels. Well, this is what the hw supports I guess, most channels will actually reported to userspace with the DISABLED flag set. > Sure, it would be nice to be able to handle long enough replies, but in > this particular case, I'm not sure whether the reply is that realistic. > Split on band boundary would not be enough here since the 5 GHz band > alone would probably have went beyond the size limit. Heh, ok, split on channels it is then I guess. No big deal, but I don't know how to handle that at all. > > > There is also a bug in hostapd which waits for ACK forever when this error occur > > > in i802_get_hw_feature_data(). > > > > I should replace all the code there with the current code from iw, it's > > much better and actually handles all the corner cases. > > I have following (completely untested) patch.. Does it look correct or > do you have something more complete that should be used here? I recently rewrote the handling in iw completely to make it easier to follow, will post an equivalent patch for hostapd in a minute. Jiri, can you tell me what happens with iw? iw phy phy0 info or something. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
