On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 03:52:09PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > This diff tries to avoid situations where background scans play > > ping-pong between different APs with nearly equal RSSI, as > > observed by phessler. > > > > Not all drivers represent RSSI values in dBm or percentage, so the > > diff includes the possibility for drivers to override the new RSSI > > comparison function. However, since the threshold is rather low > > applying this to all drivers for now should not do any harm, unless > > there is a driver where the RSSI value range is ridiculously small. > > I'm not aware of any such driver at present. > > > > Paul, do you think this is approach fits into the larger context > > of your plans for RSSI? Or would it disturb you? > > A first read suggest this is a good step in the direction I was planing > to go. I will look deeper into this the following days and come back > with a reply to this and the other emails from you here.
Are you still going to follow-up on this?
