On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 10:01 +0000, Dave wrote: > John W. Linville wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:15:47AM +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > > >> - we should not be doing it in ->open. It is technically legal to set > >> wireless parameters before "icfonfig up" and we lose all of them. I will > >> try next week with similar patch in orinoco_stop(). > > > > That seems wrong... > > > >> - I am still not even sure we should do it at all. What is sematic of > >> ifconfig up/down w.r.t. wireless parameters? I.e. is "ifconfig down" > >> expected to clean all device state and start from scratch? > > > > No. Unfortunately, it is mostly a matter of opinion as to what > > wireless extensions expects. > > Agreed with all the above. I'll discard the driver patch. > > There are two other things I can think of: > > 1. make sure wpa_supplicant is shut down before ifconfig ethX down, and > restart it on resume. Drivers shouldn't really care about what userspace is driving them; they need to either return an error for invalid requests, or handle the request. Userspace (wpa_supplicant) then needs to be smart enough to know about device events, which it already does. > From the data you've provided it looks like your distribution brings the > device down, but may leave wpa_supplicant running. I've noticed that That's still a valid case that both the driver and supplicant should handle. > every time wpa_supplicant shuts down it removes most configuration > settings. Or has that changed? Hasn't changed, on shutdown the supplicant will clear keys and reset countermeasures and whatnot. > 2. Does the driver need to send a dissociation event (or something) to > userspace on ifconfig down? If the association with the AP is no longer valid, then yes. Most of the other drivers do this already, I think. Dan -- 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
