On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > I suggest to run this code before going upstream 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
