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/
