Return-path: Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.38]:20496 "EHLO sabertooth02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752966Ab3FDQrZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:47:25 -0400 From: Vladimir Kondratiev To: "Malinen, Jouni" CC: Johannes Berg , "Peer, Ilan" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "Rodriguez, Luis" , "John W . Linville" Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] cfg80211: P2P find phase offload Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:47:20 +0300 Message-ID: <2442077.aHiBPHBLmq@lx-vladimir> (sfid-20130604_184728_858908_C61975EC) In-Reply-To: <8887AA04B7EC49479420AE48C5F94A930EF6C0AA@NASANEXD02D.na.qualcomm.com> References: <8887AA04B7EC49479420AE48C5F94A930EF6C0AA@NASANEXD02D.na.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 05:35:30 PM Malinen, Jouni wrote: > > On 6/4/13 5:29 PM, "Johannes Berg" wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 17:03 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote: > > > >> And, probes must be reported to the host in all cases, for wpa_s to > >>have peer list. > >> Need to add comment describing this. > > > >I don't think that's necessarily true. wpa_s will pre-build a list, but > >note that it doesn't make those peers as discovered and you can't really > >do anything with them. As such, I would argue that reporting probe > >requests ("probes") would be harmful and counter to one potential goal > >of this patch (powersaving.) > > In general, I'd agree. However, I would like to get information of any > peer device being in active PBC mode. This would require either getting > those Probe Request frames or alternatively that being tracked in > kernel/driver/firmware with some access for wpa_supplicant to fetch > information of all STAs (list of MAC Address + UUID) that have indicated > active PBC mode within last 120 seconds. > > - Jouni I am a bit confused. I supposed that if devices A and B (not in a group yet) try to discover each other, it works like the following A ---- probe-req ---> B (now B knows A) A <--- probe-resp ---- B (now A knows B) But if device is discovered by probe-resp only, it mean this should be A ---- probe-req ---> B A <--- probe-resp ---- B (now A knows B) A <--- probe-req ---- B A ---- probe-resp ---> B (now B knows A) What is the case? Thanks, Vladimir