On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:00:46PM -0800, Luis Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:30:19PM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 11:01 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > > Is there some way we could take that into account? I'm sure there > > > are users who would prefer to have an AP (i.e. their laptop) that > > > can't support PS clients rather than not having an AP at all. > > > > That's a good question. The distinction here is between empowering users > > to do the wrong thing (AP without proper PS support) and enforcing the > > right thing (with the consequence of complete loss of AP functionality). > > The issue I see here is that users will see "ohh shiny, AP support" > > without knowing that it doesn't actually really support it. Not sure > > which side of the line we want to stand on, I prefer the correctness > > side but I can see arguments for the other side, would just like to have > > users know. Maybe we could have some way to tell hostapd this and then > > have hostapd print a huge warning about it when started up? > > How about making it Kconfigable for broken AP support and add the > warning there? That is have something like CONFIG_MAC80211_AP_HALF_ASSED Luis -- 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
