On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 15:29 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> Since we end up associated to two different APs at the same >> time to transmit to either AP consists of an offchannel >> operation but today we just lack the state machine to be able >> to do this properly so for now just drop those frames. > > I really think that can be done more easily though. For one, clearly we > already have the warning, so we don't need more infrastructure to catch > such errors?! This is true, I just added that to ensure I hit these when testing really, I can nuke the counter, but it can help if eventually believe we have a proper fix to allow these frames through somehow too. > Also, this may end up hiding issues that we don't yet > understand, like the nullfunc one you were talking about. Yeah, good point, although I am under the impression this is a similar situation, we probably try to send a nullfunc to notify the old AP we are going to go awake if we are transmitting data while roaming. But yeah, its not easily triggerable yet. > The delBA one > we now understand fully, so it makes more sense to simply suppress > sending delBA when we are going to disassociate by way of associating > with a new AP, no? That's reasonable but we will still need the channel, otherwise how would we know its this issue? 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
