Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233]:27455 "EHLO mgw-mx06.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756531AbZCPMhy (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:37:54 -0400 To: Jouni Malinen Cc: "John W. Linville" , Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: don't drop null frames during software scan References: <20090315200738.17370.29374.stgit@tikku> <20090316085741.GA29986@jm.kir.nu> <871vsxve5p.fsf@nokia.com> From: Kalle Valo Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:36:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871vsxve5p.fsf@nokia.com> (Kalle Valo's message of "Mon\, 16 Mar 2009 14\:35\:30 +0200") Message-ID: <87wsaptzj5.fsf@nokia.com> (sfid-20090316_133756_296885_7DDC02F2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kalle Valo writes: >> so this should not matter much, but the comment could be made more >> clear about the different needs for nullfunc frames (please also >> s/null frames/nullfunc frames/) and probe request frames. The former >> are sent only on the operational channel in the beginning and end of >> scan while the latter are sent on the channels to be scanned during >> an active scan. > > Should the description be in ieee80211_start_scan() in scan.c? I think > it would make more sense to have it there instead of tx.c. I can then > add a reference to the comment above. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I'll use the term "nullfunc frame" in v3. -- Kalle Valo