On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:48 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 01/31/2011 10:44 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 10:37 -0800, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> Also, use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON if user has > >> ht40- stations in conjunction with ht40+. It's not > >> really a kernel bug, just a mis-configuration of the > >> user's wifi environment. > > > > But how did we end up here to start with -- shouldn't that have been > > rejected? > > The set-channel-type logic will complain, and I imagine the interfaces > will bounce around and attempt to re-associate, but I think it can > get into the mixed state. I think we should try to avoid that. > Regardless of that, it may be something more mundane where we have > some HT-40 and HT-20 interfaces that can co-exist, but one of those > leaves. We should still re-calculate in case their leaving changes > the super-chan calculation. Yeah, no argument about that part of the patch. 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
