On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Fabio Rossi <rossi.f@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 04 May 2009, John W. Linville wrote: > >> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 02:11:52PM -0400, Richard Farina wrote: >> > Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> Umm, if _you_ set channel 11 then you _will_ see channel 11. It's just >> >> that when it's scanning and happens to be on channel 132 instead of 11, >> >> while you previously set 11, you will _after_ this patch see 11, not >> >> 132. >> > >> > Yes, and at what point does it seem like a good idea to hide the channel >> > the wifi card is on? If I set channel 11 and it is scanning instead of >> > locked on channel 11 then I should see the current channel the hardware >> > is on. This seems like an aweful idea to me, granted, it may help a few >> > people that don't understand how scanning works, but hiding the truth is >> > never a good idea. NACK. >> >> I can see what you mean, but I think showing seemingly random >> fluctuations in channel assignments is at best distracting. Don't you >> agree that most people are more interested in seeing the configuration >> state than the transient state of the hardware? > > I want to report my experience. There was a bug in the ath5k driver with a > hanging result during scanning mode. I was able to discover the problem > thanks to the iwconfig output. > > In alternative, is it possible to add a status flag so that iwconfig from user > space can report scanning mode is operative? iw event Or the old way : iwevent 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
