Return-path: Received: from mx51.mymxserver.com ([85.199.173.110]:4956 "EHLO mx51.mymxserver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755988AbZIVLSb (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:18:31 -0400 From: Holger Schurig To: hostap@lists.shmoo.com Subject: Re: Comparison of wpa_supplicant with -Dnl80211 and -Dwext, WEP and WPA Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:17:40 +0200 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200909221118.04569.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <200909221258.44921.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> In-Reply-To: <200909221258.44921.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200909221317.40503.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > However, I'm wondering: if several scan commands are > ... Ah, the analysis was correct, but not the conclusion. The -EBUSY wasn't in cfg80211_wext_giwscan(), but in cfg80211_wext_siwscan(). Hey, I'm talking too much to myself. /me wishes, the people are back from PDX to normal work :-) -- http://www.holgerschurig.de