Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:56515 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753668Ab2KQJlI (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: <1353145302.9543.40.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20121117_104113_712127_8303FD66) Subject: Re: [RFC 00/14] mesh powersave - basics From: Johannes Berg To: Marco Porsch Cc: javier@cozybit.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:41:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1353134886-13256-1-git-send-email-marco.porsch@etit.tu-chemnitz.de> References: <1353134886-13256-1-git-send-email-marco.porsch@etit.tu-chemnitz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 22:47 -0800, Marco Porsch wrote: > The following commits cover the basic subset of functions, that each mesh node > must support to communicate in the presence of power saving nodes. > The current patchset does not implement any actual power savings yet (no > hardware configuration, no doze state). In addition to all the inline comments, the patch series ordering etc. worries me. What happens if I run an inbetween snapshot? It seems to me that could result in pretty inconsistent behaviour, in particular wrt. userspace configuration being accepted but only partially (?) used etc. johannes