Send connman mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
method is broken (Jose Blanquicet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:48:47 +0200
From: Jose Blanquicet <[email protected]>
To: Jonah Petri <[email protected]>, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>,
Patrik Flykt <[email protected]>
Cc: Sam Nazarko <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
method is broken
Message-ID:
<CAFC8iJKzt=UY3w7Y6J14p=A6SkDHz2FhP=1mf4t2i4f693e...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Jonah Petri <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The active scan is useful in order to perform a fast scan looking for the
>> WiFi networks we have got connected in the past. I think this is
>> particularly helpful to speed up auto-connect procedure at the start-up of
>> the system. Instead, when user asks for scanning I think it should always be
>> a passive scan because users want to see all WiFi networks available in
>> range. Therefore, I propose to make ConnMan ask wpa_supplicant for an active
>> scan only at star-up of the system and passive scan when it is directly
>> asked from users through a Technology.Scan() D-Bus call. Both things no
>> matter BackgroundScanning's value.
>>
>> What do all you think?
>>
> (Now it was my turn to be on vacation! Sorry for the delay.)
Don't worry, welcome back!
> Great idea. This is fine for my use case, and the behaviour you propose is
> what I expected given what Technology.Scan() claims to do.
Well, the scan algorithm is quite complex but I think I finally
understood how it works and there is something we should change from
this idea.
We can resume our scenario as following:
* WiFi Driver support active scanning, it means "MaxScanSSID" is greater than 1.
* User has successfully connected to at least one WiFi network in the
past so the service's information is present in
{STOREDIR}/connman/wifi_* but none of those networks are currently in
range, let's call them "known-services".
Under these assumptions, when user asks for scanning the algorithm
will perform an active scan looking for those known-services in their
specific frequencies, this kind of scanning is generally faster than a
passive one which allows to speed up auto-connection procedure.
However, we have seen that some drivers reply with all the networks in
the specified frequencies and some other does not reply any network.
>From this point forward, the behaviour changes based on
"BackgroundScanning" value:
* Enabled: A simple backoff mechanism starting from 10s up to 5
minutes will run. Of course, using passive scan thus at the end driver
will reply with all networks in range, as user expects after scanning.
* Disabled: Nothing else is done. Any additional scan will be
executed, resulting in a possible empty scan results forever, Johan's
case.
In my initial idea I proposed to perform passive scan, no matter the
BackgroundScanning value, when user performs a Scan() D-Bus call to
ensure all networks are found. However, while trying to implement it
and due to the reasons I explained before, I realized that it could
also increase the auto-connection procedure with the default ConnMan's
configuration, i.e. BackgroundScanning enabled. Therefore, I am now
limiting this change to users who manually disabled
BackgroundScanning.
Patrik, Daniel, what do you think?
Jonah, please test this patch:
diff --git a/include/device.h b/include/device.h
index 9ac800a..5375a3a 100644
--- a/include/device.h
+++ b/include/device.h
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ struct connman_device_driver {
int (*enable) (struct connman_device *device);
int (*disable) (struct connman_device *device);
int (*scan)(enum connman_service_type type,
- struct connman_device *device,
+ struct connman_device *device, bool requested,
const char *ssid, unsigned int ssid_len,
const char *identity, const char* passphrase,
const char *security, void *user_data);
diff --git a/plugins/wifi.c b/plugins/wifi.c
index 34c16df..0b3ee28 100644
--- a/plugins/wifi.c
+++ b/plugins/wifi.c
@@ -1784,7 +1784,7 @@ static int p2p_find(struct connman_device *device)
* hidden AP first time. It is not used when system autoconnects to hidden AP.
*/
static int wifi_scan(enum connman_service_type type,
- struct connman_device *device,
+ struct connman_device *device, bool requested,
const char *ssid, unsigned int ssid_len,
const char *identity, const char* passphrase,
const char *security, void *user_data)
@@ -1876,7 +1876,8 @@ static int wifi_scan(enum connman_service_type type,
return 0;
}
- } else if (wifi->connected) {
+ } else if ((requested &&
!connman_setting_get_bool("BackgroundScanning")) ||
+ wifi->connected) {
g_supplicant_free_scan_params(scan_params);
return wifi_scan_simple(device);
} else {
diff --git a/src/device.c b/src/device.c
index a563f46..8bdf828 100644
--- a/src/device.c
+++ b/src/device.c
@@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ int connman_device_set_powered(struct
connman_device *device,
if (device->driver && device->driver->scan)
device->driver->scan(CONNMAN_SERVICE_TYPE_UNKNOWN, device,
- NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
+ false, NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
return 0;
}
@@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ static int device_scan(enum connman_service_type type,
if (!device->powered)
return -ENOLINK;
- return device->driver->scan(type, device, NULL, 0,
+ return device->driver->scan(type, device, true, NULL, 0,
NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
}
@@ -1104,7 +1104,7 @@ int __connman_device_request_hidden_scan(struct
connman_device *device,
return -EINVAL;
return device->driver->scan(CONNMAN_SERVICE_TYPE_UNKNOWN,
- device, ssid, ssid_len, identity,
+ device, false, ssid, ssid_len, identity,
passphrase, security, user_data);
}
Best regards,
Jose Blanquicet
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 22, Issue 22
***************************************
