On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 13:38 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > > Maybe we should have different flags though ... I mean, this is the > > first implementation that I hear of that interprets a background scan as > > "ok to abort at any time"? It seems very unlikely that other > > implementations would do that. I *think* (like I said before, I don't > > really know) that ours (Intel's) will just shorten the dwell time, or > > similar instead. > > Well previous implementations I've done have used this technique for > many years and you can find them in various products (assuming they > haven't been totally rewritten) :-) :-) You convinced me before though with the abort/not-abort notification being sufficient, so I think we can do with the low-priority flag and any kind of implementation. 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
