Return-path: Received: from ebb06.tieto.com ([131.207.168.38]:54780 "EHLO ebb06.tieto.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751865Ab2CWJPd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:15:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4F6C3F32.7040700@tieto.com> (sfid-20120323_101536_746751_1F793E8F) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:15:30 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLYXppb3I=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 11/12] mac80211: split offchannel functions to per-vif References: (sfid-20120320_154026_591857_E0DB8EEA) <1332492804.3506.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1332492804.3506.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg wrote: > This seems very odd. Why would one vif be off-channel, and the other be > on-channel? That makes no sense, off-channel is a global state. Should mac80211 care if the device does channel-hopping? What if it's possible for off-channel to be done simultaneously because the device has two radios? Maybe off-channel should also be reworked more to support multiple scenarios? > My thinking here right now is that mac80211-based off-channel and > scanning will only be supported for devices that don't implement > multi-channel, since all others really need to do the channel scheduling > themselves. Software off-channel isn't used only for scanning, or is it? -- Pozdrawiam / Best Regards, Michal Kazior.