Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:42370 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751696Ab2LEMUN (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:20:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id bh2so3540330pad.19 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:20:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1354706476.6234.50.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> References: <1354095769-8724-1-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <1354095769-8724-6-git-send-email-arik@wizery.com> <1354706476.6234.50.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> From: Eyal Shapira Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:19:53 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20121205_132017_990777_20C108D7) Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] wlcore: increase scan dwell times if no activity To: Luciano Coelho Cc: Arik Nemtsov , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5 December 2012 13:21, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > IMO it would have been nicer to keep the existing ones as they are and > not change the semantics. Then add the new ones with another name. > Maybe something like "max_dwell_time_active_long", which is more > generic. > > It is possible that we will find more scenarios where this long scans > could be used (eg. if it would be possible to identify whether there are > any low latency TIDs running or not). > Sure. I'll respin it.