Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 13:25 -0500, Daniel Drake wrote: > >> No, we could stick with our existing setup if the stack did something >> different. > > But you do need full refcounting I guess. > >>> Because for >>> the stack it wouldn't be required if it'd simply not start scanning when >>> queue is disabled and stop scanning immediately when queue stop is >>> requested. >> That would work, assuming there is a way to make the stack listen for >> the "TX queue stopped" event (or would the ieee80211_tx_disable wrapper >> take care of that?). > > A wrapper is what I had in mind, I don't think there's any notification > for these things.
If someone will prepare a patch that will fix this, I can test it. Otherwise, I'm prepared to substitute the bug that doesn't hurt anything for the one that I have shown does cause problems. Larry _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
