Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:51515 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753793Ab2LEVDl (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1354741378.6234.88.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> (sfid-20121205_220344_785382_7BCF6041) Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] wlcore: increase scan dwell times if no activity From: Luciano Coelho To: Eyal Shapira CC: Arik Nemtsov , Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:02:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 14:19 +0200, Eyal Shapira wrote: > 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. BTW, please take Arik's v2 which was sent to the list on Nov 30th before you make your updates. It has a mac80211 API change taken into account. -- Luca.