Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:52158 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934973AbcJXNd1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:33:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1477316004.4085.17.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20161024_153330_450598_2344DCF9) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mac80211: passively scan DFS channels if requested From: Johannes Berg To: Antonio Quartulli Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Simon Wunderlich Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:33:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20161024121129.GA8925@prodigo.lan> References: <1447464560-28104-1-git-send-email-antonio@meshcoding.com> <1447464560-28104-2-git-send-email-antonio@meshcoding.com> <1448016547.3141.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <564F1790.7030309@open-mesh.com> <20161024121129.GA8925@prodigo.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > I think it would be reasonable only if the target channel is the > > one we are using and we have done CSA. But when scanning non- > > operative channels I don't think this could work. > this has been sleeping for a while.. :) > Would it make sense to rebase it and resubmit it for inclusion? > > Given the previous discussion we could change the logic as: > * always passively scan DFS channels that are not usable > * always actively scan DFS channels that are usable (i.e. CAC was > performed). Doesn't that contradict what you said above? If we scan, don't we possibly lose our CAC result anyway, since we went off-channel? In FCC at least? In ETSI I think we're allowed to do that for a bit? Anyway, why not just always scan passively, to simplify? johannes