Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.234]:38652 "EHLO
	rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752435AbZCZJBq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:01:46 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f9so529486rvb.1
        for <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1238057661.4331.16.camel@johannes.local>
References: <1237891149.4320.73.camel@johannes.local> <1237910398.9082.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1237979070.4320.156.camel@johannes.local> <1237995072.18896.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1237996137.4320.161.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890903260100w75896d0fi9121f227cc7ca8dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<1238055060.4331.1.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890903260139k29d9e9a0ub418cdfbaef03418@mail.gmail.com>
	<1238057661.4331.16.camel@johannes.local>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:01:29 -0700
Message-ID: <43e72e890903260201x1b1fdf10pf1914127860c259f@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090326_100150_191342_97E96F45)
Subject: Re: wireless powersaving (in NM?)
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Georgy Berdyshev <codingmaster@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>,
	"Guy, Wey-Yi W" <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 01:39 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> > We talked about that briefly yesterday -- it's not very easy to
>> > determine this because of the various ways things break:
>> >
>> > =C2=A0* one AP sets the broadcast/multicast bit one beacon too lat=
e (after
>> > =C2=A0 having already sent the frames)
>> > =C2=A0* one AP doesn't buffer frames at all
>> > =C2=A0* one AP doesn't respond to PS-poll frames
>>
>> It sounds like all 3 things can be tested for.
>
> Yes, but how complicated does it get, and is it worth it to invest th=
at
> much work for these (hopefully few) ancient APs?

Might be a good set of tests to have for the testing GSoC, anyway,
against AP mode.

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireles=
s" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html