On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:48 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
Is battery use more important than accuracy of results and the amount of
time needed to perform the operation?
You're going to be using *more* battery when doing a
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 11:53 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:48 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
Is battery use more important than accuracy of results and the amount of
time needed to perform the
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:24:37PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 11:53 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:28:05PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:48 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
Is battery use more important than accuracy
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:16 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
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?
Right. It's an active scan.
--
dwmw2
-
To
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 07:58 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
Ok, so why is softmac doing an active scan, per my previous email
message? Why is it not doing passive scan for normal SIOCSIWSCAN like
most every other driver? (to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what ipw
is doing here, but I think
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 14:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 07:58 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
Ok, so why is softmac doing an active scan, per my previous email
message? Why is it not doing passive scan for normal SIOCSIWSCAN like
most every other driver? (to be honest,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:16:04PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
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
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:28 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:16:04PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
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
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:38:40PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
However, the problem with active scanning is that you have to power up
the transmit components of the radio, while passive scanning, even
though it takes a bit longer, doesn't necessarily require that. Active
scanning takes more
Jouni Malinen wrote :
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:16:04PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
That's why wireless-tools and Wireless Extensions switched to
passive scanning.
Can you please point to some documentation/email thread/etc. describing
this preference to use passive scanning? I was not
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 03:38:50PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:12 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
Jouni Malinen wrote :
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:16:04PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
That's why wireless-tools and Wireless Extensions switched to
passive
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:48 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
Is battery use more important than accuracy of results and the amount of
time needed to perform the operation?
You're going to be using *more* battery when doing a passive scan
because the dwell time is much much larger, and you can't
It currently takes something like 8 seconds to do a scan, because we
spend half a second on each channel. Reduce that time to 20ms per
channel.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.16.ppc/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_priv.h~
2006-03-21 23:50:00.0
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:00 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
It currently takes something like 8 seconds to do a scan, because we
spend half a second on each channel. Reduce that time to 20ms per
channel.
Are we talking about (1) the active probe response timeout after
transmitting the probe
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 02:40:16PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:00 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
It currently takes something like 8 seconds to do a scan, because we
spend half a second on each channel. Reduce that time to 20ms per
channel.
Are we talking about (1)
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
