On 04/01/2012 11:45 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 15:30 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
struct cfg80211_scan_request *req)
@@ -438,6 +461,33 @@ static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
local->scan_req = req;
local->scan_sdata = sdata;
+ /* If we are scanning only on the current channel, then
+ * we do not need to stop normal activities
+ */
+ if ((req->n_channels == 1)&&
+ (req->channels[0]->center_freq ==
+ local->hw.conf.channel->center_freq)) {
...
+ return 0;
+ }
+
if (local->ops->hw_scan)
__set_bit(SCAN_HW_SCANNING,&local->scanning);
Clearly, you're joking.
That is worthless feedback and gives me no idea what you
think should be fixed about it.
If you hate the entire idea of optimizing scanning on channel,
just say so plainly.
Ben
johannes
--
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
