[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F86EECC.4090805@candelatech.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:03:40 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] mac80211: Support on-channel scan option.
On 04/11/2012 08:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:52 -0700, greearb@...delatech.com wrote:
>
>> static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>> struct cfg80211_scan_request *req)
>> @@ -438,10 +461,43 @@ static int __ieee80211_start_scan(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>> local->scan_req = req;
>> local->scan_sdata = sdata;
>>
>> - if (local->ops->hw_scan)
>> + if (local->ops->hw_scan) {
>> __set_bit(SCAN_HW_SCANNING,&local->scanning);
>> - else
>> - __set_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING,&local->scanning);
>> + } else {
>> + /* If we are scanning only on the current channel, then
>> + * we do not need to stop normal activities
>> + */
>> + if ((req->n_channels == 1)&&
>> + (req->channels[0]->center_freq ==
>> + local->hw.conf.channel->center_freq)) {
>
> how about "else if {", then the indentation isn't so deep and you can
> have much nicer code in the entire block :)
>
>> + unsigned long next_delay;
>
> please add a blank line after variable declarations.
>
>> + }
>> + else {
>
> please read the coding style documentation
>
>> @@ -672,6 +704,12 @@ void ieee80211_scan_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>
>> sdata = local->scan_sdata;
>>
>> + /* When scanning on-channel, the first-callback means completeed. */
>
> typo "completed"
Ok, will fix all of that.
>> + if (test_bit(SCAN_ONCHANNEL_SCANNING,&local->scanning)) {
>> + aborted = test_and_clear_bit(SCAN_ABORTED,&local->scanning);
>> + goto out_complete;
>> + }
>
> how does the onchannel bit get cleared?
__ieee80211_scan_completed sets local->scanning to 0, and it
will WARN_ON if local->scanning is NOT zero when entering
the method, so I don't think I should clear it earlier.
> Shouldn't you be calling pre/post scan hooks?
Probably so...I'll add that. Doesn't look like ath9k uses
it, but maybe some other NIC does need it.
> I'm a bit divided over this. On the one hand, it seems like a mildly
> useful optimisation, on the other though it adds a bunch of complexity
> for multi-channel we've been thinking about... Not that we want to
> support multi-channel with SW scan anyway, but still.
It's just an optimization...maybe just add a check and do a regular scan
if multi-channel is active if it's difficult to just make it work with
multi-channel?
Thanks,
Ben
>
> johannes
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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