On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 16:54 +0100, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > >> > Can you try this? The last hunk is most important, but the other stuff >> > helps debugging. >> >> Great. The extra timeout in wap_spplicant.log is gone, so it is back >> to NM does it all by itself. > > Interesting, thanks for the test. I'll go submit the patch. > >> Here is the dmesg from this patch on top of everything else so far: >> >> wlan2: starting authentication with _id_ >> wlan2: deauthenticating from _id_ by local choice (reason=3) >> wlan2: starting authentication with _id_ >> wlan2: direct probe to AP _id_ (try 1) >> wlan2: direct probe responded >> wlan2: authenticate with AP _id_ (try 1) >> wlan2: authenticated >> wlan2: starting association with _id_ >> wlan2: associate with AP _id_ (try 1) >> wlan2: RX AssocResp from _id_ (capab=0x431 status=0 aid=1) >> wlan2: associated >> >> There is still the extra deauth at the beginning, but I guess I can >> live with it, it doesn't require user action to deal with (unlike >> without this latest patch) I suppose there might be more tuning before >> commit? > > I think I'll just remove some of the printks again, but leave the ones > moving. Actually probably better to split it up into a mac80211 and a > cfg80211 patch. > > The extra deauth is because cfg80211 already starts the auth with the > BSS before wpa_supplicant set the BSSID, and then when setting the BSSID > it asks for deauth, but before we ever actually did anything... I think > we'll just have to live with that, since it's hard to fix in the layered > design we have now. I suppose (together with some of the newly added printk you mentioned could be removed in the final version) the dmesg messages are somewhat confusing, because as a user, I would rather have a deauth message that's actually associated with a user action (e.g. if I switch AP or rfkill). Is it possible to distinguish situation where a user action is involved versus one that isn't? or is the distinction between any consequence of 'user-action' vs wpa_supplicant doing-it-on-its-own too much buried down in the layers? >> Otherwise Tested-by: >> >> Hmm, slightly side-tracked - was the original poster using NM on top >> on wpa_supplicant, just curious? > > You mean Albert? I don't know. Yes - I meant Albert - wpa_spplicant runs directly probably behaves a little differently from NM starting/stopping it. > > johannes > -- 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
