On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:52 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> struct cfg80211_scan_request *req)
> @@ -438,10 +461,43 @@ static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> local->scan_req = req;
> local->scan_sdata = sdata;
>
> - if (local->ops->hw_scan)
> + if (local->ops->hw_scan) {
> __set_bit(SCAN_HW_SCANNING, &local->scanning);
> - else
> - __set_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING, &local->scanning);
> + } else {
> + /* 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)) {
how about "else if {", then the indentation isn't so deep and you can
have much nicer code in the entire block :)
> + unsigned long next_delay;
please add a blank line after variable declarations.
> + }
> + else {
please read the coding style documentation
> @@ -672,6 +704,12 @@ void ieee80211_scan_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> sdata = local->scan_sdata;
>
> + /* When scanning on-channel, the first-callback means completeed. */
typo "completed"
> + if (test_bit(SCAN_ONCHANNEL_SCANNING, &local->scanning)) {
> + aborted = test_and_clear_bit(SCAN_ABORTED, &local->scanning);
> + goto out_complete;
> + }
how does the onchannel bit get cleared?
Shouldn't you be calling pre/post scan hooks?
I'm a bit divided over this. On the one hand, it seems like a mildly
useful optimisation, on the other though it adds a bunch of complexity
for multi-channel we've been thinking about... Not that we want to
support multi-channel with SW scan anyway, but still.
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
