Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:41182 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754248Ab2CGSrR (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:47:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:40:28 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: Paul Stewart , Jouni Malinen , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Rajkumar Manoharan , Arik Nemtsov , Eliad Peller Subject: Re: [RFCv2] mac80211: Don't let regulatory make us deaf Message-ID: <20120307184027.GC12245@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20120307_194721_183164_44981693) References: <20120221060932.8A38C20517@glenhelen.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120221131946.AC1AD20578@glenhelen.mtv.corp.google.com> <1330254954.4401.9.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1330255537.4401.10.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1330338898.3483.10.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20120227113212.GA4576@w1.fi> <1330342730.3483.34.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20120227134610.GA5070@w1.fi> <1331105774.3519.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1331105774.3519.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 08:36:14AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 21:46 -0800, Paul Stewart wrote: > > > >> Of course, if this we actually happen to come across a device that needs > > >> this it could set a flag somehwere and mac80211 could re-configure the > > >> channel to non-HT on the assoc request, but right now I'd rather not > > >> worry about that since we're moving towards multi-channel and have no > > >> indication of such devices existing. Agree? > > > > > > Yeah, that works for me. > > > > Discussions seem to have come to an end here, however I'm not sure > > what we ended up deciding. :-) I see mention of HT+TKIP -- not sure > > I'm familiar enough with what the issues are there -- as well as > > pushing the channel configuration earlier and perhaps changes to the > > association process. Since I may not have a complete handle on all > > these adjacent issues, where do we want to go with the current change > > (fixes a real-life issue) and how do we want to stage that with > > respect to the other issues this seems to have brought to the surface? > > This discussion really side-tracked somewhat -- we were discussing a > better/different solution. I'm OK with your patch, but since I'll be > touching the code again to address the other things we talked about it'd > be great if you could test after that again, maybe in a week or two? So, should I wait to merge Paul's patch until after the merge window (i.e. only merge it for 3.5)? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.