On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 10:33 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> >> @@ -396,10 +397,14 @@ ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
> >> return ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb);
> >>
> >> if (test_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING,&local->scanning)) {
> >> - /* drop all the other packets during a software scan anyway */
> >> - if (ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb) != RX_QUEUED)
> >> + ret = ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb);
> >> + /* drop all the other packets while scanning off channel */
> >> + if (ret != RX_QUEUED&&
> >> + test_bit(SCAN_OFF_CHANNEL,&local->scanning)) {
> >> dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> >> - return RX_QUEUED;
> >> + return RX_QUEUED;
> >> + }
> >> + return ret;
> >
> > Alright -- but does the mlme.c code know not to expect beacons during an
> > on-channel scan?
>
> I have a more basic question on this:
>
> Should we just pass all packets on up the stack, regardless of whether we are
> offchannel or not? I think that would simplify things here,
> and if/when we ever support things other than just scanning on
> different off-channels, that code would just work.
I'm not really exactly sure why we don't.
However -- I was thinking of something else, not data packets. While
scanning, all received beacons will be handed to the scan code. But if
the mlme code isn't told to stop looking for them, it'll still expect to
see the beacons.
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
