On 02/02/2011 09:53 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 09:43 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
+ /* If this off-channel logic ever changes, ieee80211_on_oper_channel
+ * may need to change as well.
+ */
Would it make sense to roll this thing into one?
Like "ieee80211_get_desired_channel(local,&chan,&chantype)"
and then this code and on_oper_channel would use that?
As you say, the patch is big and scary already. I would like to
attempt this change as a small follow-on patch that does just
one thing. To me, the open-coded logic is a bit more similar
to existing logic and thus easier to review.
Yeah that's a good plan.
+ /* If we are scanning on-channel, pass the pkt on up the stack so that
+ * mlme can make use of it
+ */
+ if (ieee80211_cfg_on_oper_channel(sdata->local)
+ && (channel == sdata->local->oper_channel))
+ return RX_CONTINUE;
Ah, neat trick, no need to duplicate the packet :-)
But didn't you say this wasn't necessary since timers were stopped
anyway during scan? So maybe the comment shouldn't refer to scanning,
but other work?
Timers are stopped only if we are off-channel for scanning, I think.
And, they are NOT stopped when we go off channel for work_work().
Even if the packets are not currently used by the rest of the
stack, it seems logically sound to pass them up in this case.
Right. But could you change the comment to clarify?
Sure, will do. I'm making the comment slightly more generic,
but let me know if you want it changed.
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -257,7 +257,8 @@ ieee80211_tx_h_check_assoc(struct ieee80211_tx_data *tx)
if (unlikely(info->flags& IEEE80211_TX_CTL_INJECTED))
return TX_CONTINUE;
- if (unlikely(test_bit(SCAN_OFF_CHANNEL,&tx->local->scanning))&&
+ if (unlikely(test_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING,&tx->local->scanning))&&
+ test_bit(SDATA_STATE_OFFCHANNEL,&tx->sdata->state)&&
Shouldn't that be || ? Or only the off-channel check I think?
The old check was for scan-off-channel flag. That is equiv
to sw-scanning AND state-offchannel.
Oh, true. I was just thinking this should also kick in for work stuff
off-channel.
Come to think of it -- what if work isn't off-channel, but needs to
disable powersave?
I don't know. I tried to change the work logic as little as possible
while dealing with just on/off channel changes. If work has power-save
requirements, then probably we'd need to add a new flag and explicitly
deal with power-save instead of relying on some subtle effect of going
on or off channel.
One thing: If we are normally operating in HT40 mode, we have to
shift to NO_HT for scanning. But, I think we could probably still
transmit packets even if we are temporarily in NO_HT, right?
Oh, hmm, that might be tricky depending on the rate scale algorithm and
the device. But do we really have to shift to NO_HT for scanning?
I have no idea. The current code explicitly sets NO_HT
(ie, config_hw() when scan_chan is set).
If we can scan on other channel-types, then that would be another
thing to add in a new patch. This would be of interest to
me since currently the 'scan-on-channel' doesn't really
save much work if we are running any type of HT mode...
Thanks,
Ben
--
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
