[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061221032547.GB1277@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:25:47 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>
Cc: Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network drivers that don't suspend on interface down
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:08:22PM -0500, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Hm. Does the spec not set any upper bound on how long it might take for
> >APs to respond? I'm afraid that my 802.11 knowledge is pretty slim.
>
> I'm not sure, but thats not entirely relevant either. The time it takes
> for the AP to respond is not related to the delay between userspace
> sending the siwscan and giwscan ioctls (unless you're thinking of
> userspace being too quick, but GIWSCAN already returns -EINPROGRESS when
> appropriate so this is detectable)
Ah - I've mostly been looking at the ipw* drivers, where giwscan just
seems to return information cached by the ieee80211 layer. A quick scan
suggests that most cards behave like this, but prism54 seems to refer to
the hardware. I can see why that would cause problems.
> I think it's reasonable to keep the interface down, but then when the
> user does want to connect, bring the interface up, scan, present scan
> results. Scanning is quick, there would be minimal wait needed here.
Yeah, that's true.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists