Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.175]:41343 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752477AbYKRXIj (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:08:39 -0500 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so3373920wfd.4 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:08:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240811181508y633be12pd9f2f9bd0e2c81e4@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081119_000853_695574_D634E18C) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:08:38 +0200 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: remove ieee80211_notify_mac Cc: "Johannes Berg" , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <20081118194652.GD21772@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <1226915999.3599.33.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240811170632s49c38320y18da189bf2432d54@mail.gmail.com> <1226933141.3902.19.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240811170714j7d0daf5xe718ffa1d4de8f40@mail.gmail.com> <1226942887.3902.30.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240811170934u34fa6e28m1411715690fd24b9@mail.gmail.com> <1226944799.3902.52.camel@johannes.berg> <20081118194652.GD21772@tuxdriver.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:59:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:34 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> >> > There actually complains about slow reconnection, >> >> Ok I guess then I haven't seen them for some reason. >> >> Either way, here's a quick summary: >> * locking issues with the callback are fixed by removing it >> * callback is incorrect when you're only suspended for a very short >> time >> * callback is incorrect when you're in non-STA modes >> * suspend/resume cannot be implemented well through this callback, at >> least not the way it is written now and needs to do a whole lot more >> * there's no "slow" issue when you actually resume in a different >> location where the AP is not around any more >> * there should be no "slow" issue when the AP properly deauthenticates >> when receiving data frames >> >> This was an RFC. I'm convinced it should go in, but I don't make those >> decisions anyway. I've outlined my reasons for it. > > I agree that it seems to solve problems, and there is little benefit > tokeeping the callback in question. I'm going to send this upstream. > I suggest to run this code before going upstream Tomas