Hi Johannes, On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:38:08AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > On 4/18/2012 5:15 AM, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > >>It's never in your best interest to run one supplicant per virtual > >>interface, you want to run one per piece of hardware so it can > >>coordinate between virtual interfaces. > > > >Do I understand it right that virtual interfaces are like separate devices from > >user point of view? If I create virtual interface and assign MAC I can > >transfer data through it without affecting other interfaces? Then > >wpa_supplicant does not need to know about it at all. > > No, this is incorrect. If one device wants to connect on one > channel, the other typically has to use the same channel. If one > device wants to scan, the other will be affected. Some hardware may > support switching around between two channels, but might also > support more than 2 virtual interfaces, so again they won't be > independent. BTW: which devices can switch channels? > Therefore, you need something managing all this concurrency. This is > in a small part the driver which will enforce restrictions (it will > reject new impossible things), but mostly the supplicant which can > make policy decisions about which usage should win. This doesn't sound like a rocket science to me. IMO this might be done in drivers. Those drivers which can switch channels why do they need wpa_supplicant involved making this decision? Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko -- 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
