Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:36869 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753218Ab1BFTBZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:01:25 -0500 Received: from [71.112.48.101] (pool-71-112-48-101.sttlwa.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.112.48.101]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p16J1OX0027157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:01:25 -0800 Message-ID: <4D4EF004.3040109@candelatech.com> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:01:24 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Scanning and channel types. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Current code always sets the channel type to NO_HT when scanning. From what I can tell, we should be able to send NO_HT packets on any channel type, and for passive scanning, it should not matter at all what channel-type we are using. I tested relaxing scanning to use the current channel type when scanning on the operating channel, and it seems to work. Does anyone see any problems with this approach? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com