On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 13:23 +0200, ext Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:06 +0300, Juuso Oikarinen wrote: > > > > > > Thoughts? Ideas? Would this be acceptable? > > I really don't like this. You _can_ figure out if a given frame is EAP > by looking at its ethertype (but don't implement WAPI then!) ... can't > you just give it priority _by frame_? I don't like it either, but my hands are bound. With this chip I cannot give priority by frame. The way it works on that chip is that after association you tell the chip to change mode, and that's it - no going back. > Also, it doesn't make any sense, since if you really care then you want > rekeying to also have priority... Yep, this is a problem I too have been thinking about. However, with this chip, you cannot change the priority back for re-keying. So essentially, those negotiations are done with the "lowered" WLAN priority, and if they happen to fail the connection manager will as result end up associating again with increased priority. The fact is we need this to be done this way. I have been thinking about all possible ways to do this hack inside the driver, triggering on setting of keys etc, but as far as I can tell it's not doable without assumptions having unacceptable impact on functionality. We'll have to consider some driver-specific hack-interface then, along with a correspondingly hacked user-space connection manager. This will just cause other users of the wl1271 driver ending up with dysfunctional BT-WLAN coex. -Juuso > 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
