On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 16:32 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> IMHO Not the concept but the implementation of this function is wrong. > > I disagree. > >> It should be no implementation difference between mac notification and >> reception of one RX frames that triggers oneof the connection step >> such as association response. If this would be handled in this context >> and there won't be any locking issue. >> If driver crashes internally and lost association info it can generate >> "local disassociation frame" and mac will try to reapply association >> in a regular flow. > > The point is that the whole thing about disassociation is already the > wrong assumption. As I've outlined, it only works in STA mode, and thus > the function is generally not very useful. > >> I agree that resume/suspend shell be handled properly in the mac80211 >> regardless of this issue. > > And it will handle the "firmware crashed" case perfectly too. You may have a case, anyhow, please show us some RFC before you remove of mac notify. Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
