On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 10:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:30:26AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 10:25 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:42:46AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:41 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 06:27:25AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > > How about this instead of your patches 2 and 3? > > > > > > > > > > > > We're disassociating from the old AP since we associate with the new AP, > > > > > > so there's not a whole lot of sense in explicitly tearing down > > > > > > aggregation sessions either, right? > > > > > > > > > > Good question, but why do we not get a warning when transmitting > > > > > the disassoc frame? > > > > > > > > We aren't transmitting a disassoc frame! > > > > > > OK, then the question is if we should even at least do that... > > > > No, why should we? We're sending a re-assoc frame to the new AP. > > I was wondering if actively disassociating might help with a smoother > transition. I was under this why we were doing this in the first place. > I frankly do not know, but if it does not help then I do agree with > your patch replacement. Nope, I don't think how it would help at all. 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
