On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:11 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote:
> Currently, ps mode is indicated per device (rather than
> per interface), which doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Moreover, there are subtle bugs caused by the inability
> to indicate ps change along with other changes
> (e.g. when the AP deauth us, we'd like to indicate
> CHANGED_PS | CHANGED_ASSOC, as changing PS before
> notifying about disassociation will result in null-packets
> being sent (if IEEE80211_HW_SUPPORTS_DYNAMIC_PS) while
> the sta is already disconnected.)
>
> Keep the current per-device notifications, and add
> additional per-vif notifications. In order to keep it
> simple, these notifications are NOT called due to
> (temporary) dynamic_ps/offchannel operations.
So I think if we do this, it would make sense to not do it in recalc_ps,
but like you did in disassoc:
> @@ -1368,6 +1388,8 @@ static void ieee80211_set_disassoc(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> if (local->hw.conf.flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS) {
> local->hw.conf.flags &= ~IEEE80211_CONF_PS;
> ieee80211_hw_config(local, IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS);
> + sdata->vif.bss_conf.ps = false;
> + changed |= BSS_CHANGED_PS;
> }
> local->ps_sdata = NULL;
set it directly in the relevant code.
However, I'm not sure that we really should toggle it with association?
For the original CONF_PS semantics where mac80211 actually woke up for
dynamic PS etc. this made sense, but for smarter devices I think the PS
flag could be solely mirroring the combination of
a) broken AP => no PS
b) user enable/disable
even when not associated?
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
