On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:34 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > There actually complains about slow reconnection, Ok I guess then I haven't seen them for some reason. Either way, here's a quick summary: * locking issues with the callback are fixed by removing it * callback is incorrect when you're only suspended for a very short time * callback is incorrect when you're in non-STA modes * suspend/resume cannot be implemented well through this callback, at least not the way it is written now and needs to do a whole lot more * there's no "slow" issue when you actually resume in a different location where the AP is not around any more * there should be no "slow" issue when the AP properly deauthenticates when receiving data frames This was an RFC. I'm convinced it should go in, but I don't make those decisions anyway. I've outlined my reasons for it. > Second we used the > same mechanism to > recover from rfkill which wasn't submitted. rfkill needs also mac80211 > treatment. Sure does, and I've even described how I'd do it in some email. Seems nobody actually cares enough though to invest the day or two it would take to write it. And I don't care about killswitches at all, fortunately, so I don't need to touch that mess. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
