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 th
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 th
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
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 po
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
> > >
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 scanning.
> >
> > Can you please point to some documentation/em
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
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 mor
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 di
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 yo
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 h
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 10:18 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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 do
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
-
T
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:31 +, 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
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
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 a
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 fr
18 matches
Mail list logo
