Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com ([209.85.128.181]:33622 "EHLO mail-wr0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370AbdBNNdn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:33:43 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id i10so170316540wrb.0 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 05:33:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC V2 1/5] nl80211: allow multiple active scheduled scan requests To: Johannes Berg References: <1484566941-27000-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1484566941-27000-2-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1485250815.7244.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Cc: linux-wireless From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170214_143409_649609_25A2DC48) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:33:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1485250815.7244.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 24-1-2017 10:40, Johannes Berg wrote: >> + /* leave request id zero for legacy request >> + * or if driver does not support multi-scheduled scan >> + */ >> + if (want_multi && rdev->wiphy.max_sched_scan_reqs > 1) { > > Why do the >1 check here? It probably doesn't really make a difference > since only one can be running at a time, but it might be nicer - at > least for debug in userspace - to have a real value for all multi > scans? I added the check, because drivers not supporting multi-scheduled scan might not bother using the request id in event reporting. Regards, Arend