On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:21:47AM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2011-01-12 10:06 AM, Björn Smedman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Rajkumar Manoharan > > <rmanoharan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The commit ""ath9k: Add change_interface callback" was failed > >> to update of hw opmode, ani and interrupt mask. This leads > >> to break p2p functionality on ath9k. And the existing add and > >> remove interface functions are not handling hw opmode and > >> ANI properly. > >> > >> This patch combines the common code in interface callbacks > >> and also takes care of multi-vif cases. > > > > How does your patch handle the race condition between the interface > > change done in process context and the beacon tasklet triggered by > > SWBA? > > > > Also, perhaps more applicable to the commit log than the patch, how > > can opmode be properly handled in multi-vif cases? I mean let's say I > > have two AP vifs and then change one into STA, is the opmode then STA? > > Compare that to the case where I have two STA vifs and change one into > > AP; so again I have one AP and one STA vif but this time opmode is AP, > > right? I can see how I can be wrong about these examples but I can't > > really see how the opmode concept can be properly handled in multi-vif > > cases. > I think opmode should be handled as follows: > If there is at least one AP interface, opmode should be AP, regardless > of what the other interfaces are set to. > If there is no AP vif, opmode can be set to the primary vif type. > Correct. this RFC patch does the same. -- Rajkumar -- 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
