Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]:30898 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422632AbXBPO34 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:29:56 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id o25so1537572nfa for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:29:55 -0800 (PST) To: Jiri Benc Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] d80211: Add software sequence support Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:29:22 +0100 Cc: Michael Wu , "John Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200702141423.27823.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200702161325.47396.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <20070216135827.7d262ae3@griffin.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070216135827.7d262ae3@griffin.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200702161529.22717.IvDoorn@gmail.com> From: Ivo van Doorn Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 16 February 2007 13:58, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:25:47 +0100, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Friday 16 February 2007 13:03, Jiri Benc wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:57:22 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > > > > Thinking about it more, sdata should be the correct place. It's more > > > > per-interface thing than per-BSS (although the difference is small in > > > > this particular case). > > > > > > ...and thinking about it even more, that won't work with WDS. > > > > You mean storing the sequence counter per-interface won't work, > > or per-bss? > > Both. > > When you have a WDS link and some other wireless interface at the same > time, their source addresses are (in most cases) the same. You want to > have the sequence control counter shared by them. Actually, it will > probably work most of time even when they have different counters. The > situation where it won't work is if you have two virtual interfaces, > one in STA and second in WDS mode, both connected to the same AP. I > can't figure out how this particular setup could be useful but it's > generally not disallowed. > > Anyway, using different counter for a WDS interface probably violates > 802.11 (although it's not much specific in this case). I believe it > will work in most cases, though. > > Any ideas how to solve that? Are there more situations where it might be important to know if the WDS interface has to keep in mind that there is a virtual STA interface on the same network? Because it might be worthwhile to make a check for that in the creation of the WDS interface (and in the STA interface). Ivo