On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:12:55 -0400, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This sounds completely wrong. Do you guys remember the Subject: string > > of this discussion by any chance? > There are two options for tools: (a) request scan and block on GIWSCAN > until it doesn't return EAGAIN, or (b) request a scan, enter a loop, > wait for the GIWSCAN netlink message to come back. The point here is > that if you have to write a tool with 100 lines of netlink message > processing code _just_ to get the "scan done!" message, that's a bitch. > More complicated programs can obviously do this, but simple tools don't > want or need to. Do you realize that "block" means "enterering the kernel and calling schedule()", which is exactly what is NOT happening in the patch? I would not mind if the tools "blocked in GIWSCAN", only until it returns success and not EGAIN. With EAGAIN returned, you have to a) block elsewhere and not in GIWSCAN (perhaps in sleep(2) or select(2)), or b) not block at all and loop. > I believe that the patch for softmac/bcm43xx EAGAIN is correct. It is correct, no doubt. The discussion is about wether it is desirable. -- Pete - 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
