[removed netdev, no reason for sending this there]
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:02:51 +0100 (BST), Daniel Drake wrote:
> My cheapy D-Link AP behaves strangely w.r.t reassociations.
>
> The following sequence of commands causes me to lose association and to be
> unable to regain it:
>
> ifconfig eth8 down
> ifconfig eth8 up
> iwconfig eth8 essid <x>
>
> This is because mac80211 tries to reassociate, rather than just associate.
> My AP replies with an association response (not a reassociation response...)
> denying the association with code 12: "Association denied due to reason
> outside the scope of this standard"
>
> mac80211 tries this reassociation another 4 times or so before finally giving
> up.
>
> I see 2 problems here:
> 1. bringing the interface down and up again should be resetting interface state
> i.e. after the interface is brought down, it should have no memory of if or
> where it was previously associated
> 2. after the first reassociation fails, mac80211 should fall back to
> standard association for the next attempt
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jiri Benc <[email protected]>
--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
Jiri Benc wrote:
> [removed netdev, no reason for sending this there]
Was I wrong for sending the patch there, or was it just your ACK that
you didn't think would be relevant on netdev?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:15:32 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Jiri Benc wrote:
> > [removed netdev, no reason for sending this there]
>
> Was I wrong for sending the patch there, or was it just your ACK that
> you didn't think would be relevant on netdev?
linux-wireless mailinglist was created to lower traffic at netdev. I
understand that in the way that wireless patches should be sent to
linux-wireless only; they will be sent to nedev by John when he's asking
for a pull. But I'm not sure about that (Cc:ing John), my comment was more
about my ack.
Jiri
--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:38:38AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:15:32 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Jiri Benc wrote:
> > > [removed netdev, no reason for sending this there]
> >
> > Was I wrong for sending the patch there, or was it just your ACK that
> > you didn't think would be relevant on netdev?
>
> linux-wireless mailinglist was created to lower traffic at netdev. I
> understand that in the way that wireless patches should be sent to
> linux-wireless only; they will be sent to nedev by John when he's asking
> for a pull. But I'm not sure about that (Cc:ing John), my comment was more
> about my ack.
I think linux-wireless is sufficient, especially for small and/or
isolated patches. But there is no real harm in including netdev,
especially for patches with broader impact. For example, if Zhu Yi
and PJ had chosen to push the multiqueue stuff on wireless first then
it would certainly have been appropriate to copy netdev. I guess
it is just a judgment call -- if your patch merits broader review,
then copy netdev as well.
Hth! (I doubt if it does!)
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]