Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mac80211: Support LIVE_ADDRESS_CHANGE feature
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190913195908.7871-1-prestwoj@gmail.com>
 <20190913195908.7871-2-prestwoj@gmail.com>
 <c6835b5c5d2a97fa82b0fb21f7b7f0056aa42e1b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <90ae00044bc0834d87d3f9fb75ce63dce4cfadd5.camel@gmail.com>
 <fa09d946e85a637d7b49e208714945dcbcc23f76.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2cf6ce4c-e9b7-9927-0f6f-52433ab3c66b@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:28:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fa09d946e85a637d7b49e208714945dcbcc23f76.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Johannes,

>>> And, I'm confused, but isn't the polarity of the scanning check
>>> wrong?
>>
>> Ah yeah, after you pointed that out I realized 'scanning' is a bit
>> field. I should be doing:
>>
>> test_bit(SCAN_HW_SCANNING, &sdata->local->scanning)
> 
> I think checking for all the bits is fine (and necessary, just HW scan
> is unlikely to be enough, changing the MAC address would also disrupt a
> software scan) - just need to invert the polarity?

I concur that scanning should be checked as
if (sdata->local->scanning).  So Johannes you're right that the polarity 
is reversed.  However, __ieee80211_start_scan seems to check for 
local->scan_req instead to take deferred scans into account.  So I 
wonder if that is a better approach.

Regards,
-Denis