On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:25:37AM -0800, Javier Cardona wrote: > Thadeu, Johannes, > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 11:51 -0800, Andrey Yurovsky wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Johannes Berg > >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > I do wonder though, the commit (155cc9e4b1d60161ee53) I referenced was > >> > yours, and now you're asking the same question as I am -- "why even > >> > allow adding stations?" > >> > >> It was supported for automated testing and experimentation (you could > >> then force certain topologies). I can't think of any other reason to > >> do it. I suppose that the same thing goes for mpaths and the mesh > >> portal tables. > > > > So would you prefer to fix it (however we would do that, I don't think > > that the patch here is correct since it leaves the station struct with > > no usable rates afaict), or just disallow it? > > After reviewing our mesh test suite, I would vote for disallowing mesh > point addition via iw. We currently force topologies by 1. turning > auto peering off, 2. waiting for neighbors to be discovered and 3. > controlling peering with 'iw ... station set <MAC address> > plink_action <open|block>' > > Thadeu, would this approach work for you? > That's OK for me. Do you want a patch? > Javier > > > > -- > Javier Cardona > cozybit Inc. > http://www.cozybit.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
