On 04/01/2012 01:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
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?
Well, I was hoping that a simple scan-on-channel wouldn't need to
care about the hw-scan logic.
But, I can change it so that the optimized scan-on-channel only
is supported on NICs that do software-scan?
The patch does have a small bug in the scan-complete logic,
but aside from that, it appears to work on ath9k.
Thanks,
Ben
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
--
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
