On 01/31/2011 10:57 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
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.
Ok. I haven't actually tested that case yet. It's possible
that we can't actually get in that case..but I haven't found
anything that prevents it while reading code. Assuming there is a problem,
what would be the preferred fix? Maybe force to NO_HT if an interface
tries to associate with HT40+/- mis-match?
Do you want me to repost this patch without the WARN_ON_ONCE
changes?
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
Thanks,
Ben
--
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
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
