Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:48461 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756562Ab0I0PJP (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:09:15 -0400 Subject: Re: active vs. passive scans From: Johannes Berg To: Luciano Coelho Cc: ext Chuck Crisler , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <1285599964.5768.120.camel@chilepepper> References: <15713CDD627C41D39E4B9725AE2B241D@ChuckPC> <1285599964.5768.120.camel@chilepepper> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:09:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1285600151.4043.23.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 18:06 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > Usually the drivers stay for a certain period of time in each channel, > and that normally doesn't change if you have active or passive scan. So > there will be no improvement in the overall scan speed. Of course you > could do some tweaks that might improve scanning performance in specific > cases. It's certainly different with mac80211: #define IEEE80211_CHANNEL_TIME (HZ / 33) #define IEEE80211_PASSIVE_CHANNEL_TIME (HZ / 8) johannes