On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:31 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:40 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > Are we talking about (1) the active probe response timeout after > > transmitting the probe frame, or (2) the default passive scan channel > > dwell time? > > > > If (2), I'd have to NAK this patch, as 20ms that seems really low. > > It's only (1). I consistently measured response times of within 1ms from > my WAP54G.
Ok, that's cool. Wasn't apparent to me from the initial message. But does that mean that softmac is doing the scanning with _probe_ requests on each channel? It's not doing passive scanning? You mentioned that it took NM 8 seconds to scan, and that this patch fixed it. Active scanning has been out of vogue as the default scan method for like 2 years with wireless-tools/WE, I'm not sure why softmac thinks it should be different here. Active scanning takes more power anyway, since you have to power up the card to transmit the probe requests. That's why wireless-tools and Wireless Extensions switched to passive scanning. I'd have issues with softmac doing active scanning unless _specifically_ requested to do so, by using the SIOCGIWMLME with a iw_scan_req structure requesting IW_SCAN_TYPE_ACTIVE. But _only_ then... Normal SIOCGIWSCAN shouldn't do active scanning. Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
