Return-path: Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com ([67.231.148.174]:38653 "EHLO mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751396AbbDOJCK convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:02:10 -0400 From: Amitkumar Karwar To: "quozl@laptop.org" CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Cathy Luo , Avinash Patil Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 02:01:44 -0700 Subject: RE: [PATCH] mwifiex: increase number of probes for specific SSID scans Message-ID: <5FF020A1CFFEEC49BD1E09530C4FF5951B16DFC138@SC-VEXCH1.marvell.com> (sfid-20150415_110215_682682_D608A456) References: <1429022956-12016-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com> <20150414203724.GB32455@us.netrek.org> In-Reply-To: <20150414203724.GB32455@us.netrek.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi James, > > 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? > Idea was to have better chance of finding an AP configured with hidden SSID when environment is busy by sending multiple probe requests. > 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. You are right. Free air time will be decreased. We have discarded this approach considering its consequences. > > Should the number of probes be a choice of user space? > Do you see any potential use case for multiple probe requests? I think, we should stick to current implementation of sending 1 probe request. Regards, Amitkumar