Simon
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Malinen
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Simon Barber
Cc: Jiri Benc; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 6/13] d80211: remove obsolete stuff
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 04:41:56PM -0800, Simon Barber wrote:
> The more natural way for beacons
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 05:45:48PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:36:16 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> See the patch below. Is it viable?
I'll test this with our low-level driver.
> > This and similar change for ieee80211_get_buffered_bc() add more
> > requirements for the low-l
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:36:16 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> In theory, the low-level driver can determine the needed mask itself.
> However, it would need to be somehow notified of allowed BSSID values.
> By removing this entry, this information would need to fetched from
> somewhere else before int
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 04:41:56PM -0800, Simon Barber wrote:
> The more natural way for beacons to flow from the 80211.o to the low
> level driver would be for beacons to be passed down just like any other
> 802.11 frame is passed down - rather than having a special case for
> beacons and buffered
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jouni Malinen
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:36 PM
To: Jiri Benc
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 6/13] d80211: remove obsolete stuff
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> Because any number of interfa
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> Because any number of interfaces may be added, bss_devs and sta_devs arrays
> cannot be fixed-size arrays. We can make them linked lists, but they are
> needed for optimalization only (and even that is questionable with
> subsequent patc
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:07:26PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:49:46 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > The reason for this optimization was in even high-end CPUs starting to
> > run out of resources when running one radio with 2007 "virtual STAs",
> Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:49:46 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> The reason for this optimization was in even high-end CPUs starting to
> run out of resources when running one radio with 2007 "virtual STAs",
> i.e., when testing AP capabilities.. In other words, unless some of your
> other patches improve
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> Because any number of interfaces may be added, bss_devs and sta_devs arrays
> cannot be fixed-size arrays. We can make them linked lists, but they are
> needed for optimalization only (and even that is questionable with
> subsequent patc
