On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 10:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > 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? Why do we care? We can just always suppress sending the delba when we get into _set_disassoc() from mgd_assoc(), no? 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
