On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:34:19 -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
This ioctl is used when radar is delected on a channel. Data frames must stop
but management frames must be allowed to continue for some time to communicate
the channel switch to stations.
Any progress here? Is what Simon wrote (quoted
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 09:01 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
Well, it would be nice to get these in quite soon. I know that the
current mechanism works since it has been used for years, but if the
netlink-based solution is considered stable and working and unlikely to
require major changes soon, I
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:39 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
What would be the preferred way of doing the conversion here? I think I
would prefer to get the radar detection code in as-is and then move all
the messages to use a new mechanism as one change once that mechanism
becomes available.
I
Hi Elliot,
Thanks for the explanation.
Radar is initially detected by the low-level radio driver. Userspace
gets notified of radar via calls to ieee80211_radar_status, which
generates a fake management frame with a struct ieee80211_radar_info
in it. Userspace is then responsible for
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:30:57AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
Radar is initially detected by the low-level radio driver. Userspace
gets notified of radar via calls to ieee80211_radar_status, which
generates a fake management frame with a struct ieee80211_radar_info
in it. Userspace is
Hi Johannes,
Johannes Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:34 -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
This ioctl is used when radar is delected on a channel. Data
frames must stop but management frames must be allowed to continue
for some time to communicate the channel switch to
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:34 -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
This ioctl is used when radar is delected on a channel. Data frames must stop
but management frames must be allowed to continue for some time to communicate
the channel switch to stations.
Which does lead to the question: How are you
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:25:06 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
Should that really drop dataframes dead on the floor? And wouldn't it
make sense stop the networking layer from injecting more data into the
stack when stop_data_frame_tx is enabled?
I agree. That should be solved in an another way (stop
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Johannes Berg
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:25 AM
To: David Kimdon
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; John W. Linville; Jiri Benc
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] d80211: add ioctl to stop data frame tx
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:34 -0700
