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 | [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
