Return-path: Received: from s2.neomailbox.net ([5.148.176.60]:2950 "EHLO s2.neomailbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934306AbcJXNfz (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:35:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:35:10 +0800 From: Antonio Quartulli To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Simon Wunderlich Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mac80211: passively scan DFS channels if requested Message-ID: <20161024133510.GD8925@prodigo.lan> (sfid-20161024_153558_840649_259CC484) 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> <1477316004.4085.17.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF" In-Reply-To: <1477316004.4085.17.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >=20 > > > 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. >=20 > > this has been sleeping for a while.. :) > > Would it make sense to rebase it and resubmit it for inclusion? > >=20 > > 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). >=20 > Doesn't that contradict what you said above? >=20 > 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? argh. ok, I think I had forgotten about this detail. >=20 > Anyway, why not just always scan passively, to simplify? >=20 Probably better..ok let's do it this way. Thanks ! --=20 Antonio Quartulli --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYDg4LAAoJEJ6F1zG2JyOsOf4QAKhVDk67tINEQjgwiWRYSoE4 iU341ybeGoAXRZgu5dKJhoRHIK+BiU6e+X52GcZ/SiUxuWkqcXm1D0q0xOs9egMj 4YcI95ENpLM+1qrrG97jyJ6CFBGk1eHuvfijwEmahwURfoiHmklQG+UOPJAIlccD NQaB/kaQrpZcIo3EZkvM5327NXyNTIPAQZ/i4YjEKJ/6YLRYSYpUbOv6/yZ32nPo KmncM3vV10hgcwMtwyPFT/HqvWp/7mWMya/eqCaYCtzSVEMKAkAq+eoy7l7lFV1H toPHlVYWwDngYie+Q35Dfy77HLj1Dnu/9P7rTpqZPK1yfcTOVDnbzx8b35BXMhoi bAfZjJE7jrf+n2mdwuwttDLQ/URlt87/Rl9Y9AWFq6Atlhxi+6sptCohxqowfOtM 7kBiJx5bGGcX8zKhJVIujWF+emkXd29mM6Abw2CZ8HE07FMaFfdtF8VoLjLqfqSn WWRbKZr6qgTfWw4a/hS+m0DR0CSjfay2IrHY9jQrMF7svylBveErx7Dq88DVv19i d6HFJahL6yoBbyXFKeYyRy/e/uqY4t0XtPplgqVldn8yCq8NrkDb3Hyt+EsHkzmh SPzhwVKocPyCT+1kI9Tnu18umVFJ1jzPtCxugfAjIV2rNlhAFF/yWvZi3vlB+Uo7 esKgf23qI+j8sqtqzRHe =lW/A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF--