On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 06:06 +0100, Oikarinen Juuso (Nokia-D/Tampere)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 17:15 +0100, ext Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > void ieee80211_beacon_loss_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > {
> > > struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata =
> > > container_of(work, struct ieee80211_sub_if_data,
> > > u.mgd.beacon_loss_work);
> > >
> > > - ieee80211_mgd_probe_ap(sdata, true);
> > > + if (sdata->local->hw.flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR)
> > > + ieee80211_beacon_loss_disassoc(sdata);
> > > + else
> > > + ieee80211_mgd_probe_ap(sdata, true);
> > > }
> >
> > And I'm actually wondering now if using the same API is a good idea.
> > Yes, it makes some sense, but it's quite different yet? Maybe we should
> > have something like this:
> >
> > static inline void ieee80211_beacon_loss(hw, vif)
> > {
> > WARN_ON(hw->flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR);
> > __ieee80211_beacon_connection_loss(vif);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void ieee80211_connection_loss(hw, vif)
> > {
> > WARN_ON(!(hw->flags & IEEE80211_HW_CONNECTION_MONITOR));
> > __ieee80211_beacon_connection_loss(vif);
> > }
> >
> > to make at least the external API easier to understand?
>
> We actually had a debate about this with Luciano Coelho, and I opted for
> a separate API, and Luca opted for just adding a flag to the existing
> beacon loss function. To be noted: Luca, two against one now! ;)
Heh, damn you guys! Lots of things have changed since Juuso and I
discussed this, so I'm not 100% sure that my previous comment about the
flag really still applies. :P
My point at the time was that the driver should inform mac80211 that it
has tried to send probe_reqs automatically but they were not answered,
and let mac80211 itself decide whether that meant a connection loss or
not.
--
Luca, the one who won't admit losing the discussion. :)
--
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
