[Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] Fix inability to configure adhoc in 3.4.x] On 01/08/2012 (Wed 19:42) Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 13:38 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > > > 1) cherry pick 8e8b41f9d, and all the driver specific changes it requires > > > > > > > > 2) make a sub-commit for stable that just takes the total==1 from #1. > > > > > > > > 3) patch iwlwifi/iwl-mac80211.c and add ".types = BIT(NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)" > > > > > > > > 4) treat ADHOC as a universal feature that everyone has. > > > > > > > > The following patch does #4, and in theory it could be used in mainline > > > > and then cherry picked back to stable. But we weren't 100% sure if that > > > > was the best solution, since neither of us are really wireless people, > > > > hence all the detail here. > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed analysis. Given 8e8b41f9d, I don't think any > > > mainline changes are actually needed? > > > > Perhaps not. I know Liang was looking at the ath5k and ath9k changes: > > > > 9b4760e ath5k: add possible wiphy interface combinations > > 20c8e8d ath9k: add possible wiphy interface combinations > > > > and thinking that the above commits plus the "total==1" change > > wouldn't fix any ATH multifunction cards (if they exist) in the > > ad-hoc use case - but we didn't have such hardware to test with. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "wouldn't fix" here -- the way the devices > advertise their multi-virtual-interface support is that they do not > support IBSS (ad-hoc) in combination with any other interface. > Therefore, pure IBSS should be covered by the total==1 case? OK, it sounds like I/we were simply just misunderstanding the code, due to lack of wireless knowledge, and that the exclusion was intentional. We'll get the total==1 subpatch posted here tomorrow. Thanks again for the input. Paul. -- > > 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
