On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 13:45 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> 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.
I did quote only the relevant pieces -- you're completely ignoring hw
scan. Why should I care about this patch then?
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
