Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:49044 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753347Ab3JUMvz (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:51:55 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id eh20so475182lab.25 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:51:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87wql7tac9.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> References: <87wql7tac9.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:51:32 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20131021_145158_564657_17DA4DAE) Subject: Re: Active scanning on DFS channels To: Kalle Valo Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi , linux-wireless , Johannes Berg , Simon Wunderlich Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" writes: > >>> Should we perform >>> passive scan on radar channel setting new state to SCAN_DECISION and >>> not to SCAN_SEND_PROBE in ieee80211_scan_state_set_channel()? >> >> There's a few thing we need to do and I'm working on it. >> >> 1) no-ibss and passive-scan flags should be merged to a no-ir flag > > For me IR always reminds of infrared, so the name no-ir is a bit vague > to me :) Any recommendations? I'm just lazy. Luis