On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:28 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > But I'm not sure what you mean? > > > > With the fix, we go through and use the widest possible channel of all > > interfaces. The only conflict can happen with HT40- and HT40+, but we > > should never get into that situation since we can't have one interface > > with HT40- and another with HT40+ at the same time to start with. Am I > > missing something? > > Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can tell: > > If we have two interfaces: > > first interface is HT40, second is HT20: > -> superchan == HT20 > > first interface is HT20, second is HT40: > -> superchan == HT40 > > It seems wrong that the ordering would influence superchan before we go into > the "switch (superchan)" logic. Ah, you're right -- the real fix isn't this patch, but probably something like this: ... case NL..._NO_HT: case NL_...HT20: if (channel_type < super_chan) break; superchan = channel_type; break; ... 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
