Return-path: Received: from zimbra.real-time.com ([63.170.91.9]:50863 "EHLO zimbra.real-time.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753983AbbDNUhh (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:37:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:37:24 +1000 From: James Cameron To: Amitkumar Karwar Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Cathy Luo , Avinash Patil Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: increase number of probes for specific SSID scans Message-ID: <20150414203724.GB32455@us.netrek.org> (sfid-20150414_223741_269481_B892574E) References: <1429022956-12016-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1429022956-12016-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:49:16AM -0700, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > It's been observed that device sometimes fails to find AP > configured in hidden SSID in busy environment. We will increase > number of probes for specific SSID scans for getting better results. I don't like this. It worries me. What is the underlying cause? If it is something other than collision, why? In scenario of tens to a hundred laptops scanning for specific SSID for ad-hoc in the Sugar desktop environment, this patch may decrease free air time considerably. Should the number of probes be a choice of user space? -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/