On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 09:24 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> +++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c > >> @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ static int ieee80211_change_iface(struct wiphy *wiphy, > >> struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata = IEEE80211_DEV_TO_SUB_IF(dev); > >> int ret; > >> > >> + if (params->disable_11n != -1) > >> + sdata->cfg_disable_11n = params->disable_11n; > > > > This doesn't seem right -- why change the iface for it? It's a per > > connection parameter. > > I wanted it to be an interface parameter, or at least I think > that is what I want. Why? I'm thinking that it's better as a connection parameter as then it's more temporal. I know we have interface parameters like RTS/CTS settings etc, but I like connection parameters better as they go away with each new connection, so the behaviour is less surprising to most users. Imagine your wpa_supplicant crashes, and then the user who was restricting it to no-HT starts the regular wpa_supplicant; now his interface will be in no-HT until he reboots or figures out the right magic to change it. I think that kind of situation is undesirable. > I would like eventually to support this same feature for AP > interfaces, and probably other types. Would it still be in > the u.mgd struct in that case? No, but again there I'd argue that it should be a "connection" parameter as well. 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
