Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:46:53 +0200
From: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nl80211: Add notification for dropped Deauth/Disassoc
Message-ID: <20101214074653.GA28072@jm.kir.nu>
References: <20101213220048.GA24752@jm.kir.nu>
 <1292310907.3569.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1292310907.3569.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:15:07AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 00:00 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > + * @NL80211_CMD_UNPROT_DEAUTHENTICATE: Unprotected deauthentication frame
> > + * @NL80211_CMD_UNPROT_DISASSOCIATE: Unprotected disassociation frame
> 
> I don't mind, but if we add the frame body should we really have two
> commands? Or should we have just one? Are we likely to need similar
> functionality for other frames? The only ones I can think of are class 3
> frames from unassociated stations, but that seems like it should be
> separate anyway.

This one followed the existing example of NL80211_CMD_DEAUTH/DISASSOC,
but well, those are for both notification and requests, so I can see the
difference there.. For these notification-only ones, I would be fine
having a single command if that is desirable. Though, I would probably
not go as far as merging any other frames to this list since
deauth/disassoc are special case for the AP starting to send these as
replies to any Class 2 or 3 frame.

-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA