On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:59:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. I agree that it seems to solve problems, and there is little benefit tokeeping the callback in question. I'm going to send this upstream. John -- John W. Linville Linux should be at the core linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx of your literate lifestyle. -- 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
