Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.185]:56633 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752595AbYKYC0H (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:26:07 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d3so1217317nfc.21 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:26:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <492B623E.5030202@gmail.com> (sfid-20081125_032612_870861_48702D7C) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:26:06 -0500 From: Richard Farina MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Pavel Roskin , John Linville , wireless Subject: Re: wireless-regdb: flaw in general functionality References: <492B2B74.7040404@gmail.com> <20081124231204.GN6245@tesla> <1227568883.28878.15.camel@dv> <43e72e890811241526o1ea6ecf7ge05a2319d6ff3641@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43e72e890811241526o1ea6ecf7ge05a2319d6ff3641@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote: > >> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 15:12 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> >>> Your point about not being able to listen is a good one, and a patch to >>> update the the US in consideration of part 15 rules would be >>> appreciated. Keep in mind we have flags for such things: >>> >>> -Passive scan >>> -No-IBSS >>> >>> We should probably rename no-ibss to no-beaconing though as that is the >>> real meaning inention behind it. >>> >> Maybe you mean no-transmit? >> > > Yeah sure, that seems to make more sense. > > I'm all for adding it to crda as no-transmit but, is that a valid flag? Also, how well does it work? From a monitor mode interface you can inject raw packets out of the interface. Would just adding "no-transmit" into the crda line work? I certainly don't see this in the crda code anywhere, nor in the definition of regdb file. I presume this has to be added? Thanks, Rick Farina > Luis > >