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: [PATCH] Force simple wifi scan over dbus Scan
(Vasyl Vavrychuk)
2. Re: [PATCH] Force simple wifi scan over dbus Scan
(????????? ?????)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:19:36 +0200
From: Vasyl Vavrychuk <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force simple wifi scan over dbus Scan
Message-ID:
<camqc21cuwhfuapzxx3aycxba-6+ynz-j4qnak0lahpywfmi...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > diff --git a/plugins/wifi.c b/plugins/wifi.c
> > index dc08c6af..ef73e843 100644
> > --- a/plugins/wifi.c
> > +++ b/plugins/wifi.c
> > @@ -1861,7 +1861,8 @@ static int wifi_scan(enum connman_service_type type,
> > struct connman_device *device,
> > const char *ssid, unsigned int ssid_len,
> > const char *identity, const char* passphrase,
> > - const char *security, void *user_data)
> > + const char *security, bool force_full_scan,
> > + void *user_data)
>
> I am not partucilar fan of adding a bool for this, because it is already
> hard to figure out which parameters is what. Adding a bool makes it even
> harder. Why not defining a enum for the forced scan?
How about putting ssid, ssid_len, identity, passphrase, security and
force_full_scan into scan_params structure?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:09:53 -0800
From: ????????? ????? <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force simple wifi scan over dbus Scan
Message-ID:
<calmby5zknepvjrp9_pkomjsld3255zn9rxeew1couag+pmo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Vasyl and Daniel,
Thank you for reviewing my patch.
I agree with Vasyl to have a dedicated structure scan_params. I will go
this way.
I will also prepare changes recommended by Daniel except enum. Enum with 2
types is as bad as bool. ;-)
Daniel thank you for pointing me a flaw with PASSIVE scan. It should help
me in my work as well.
PS. I am busy with my job so do not anticipate quick responses :-(
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:19 AM Vasyl Vavrychuk <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/plugins/wifi.c b/plugins/wifi.c
> > > index dc08c6af..ef73e843 100644
> > > --- a/plugins/wifi.c
> > > +++ b/plugins/wifi.c
> > > @@ -1861,7 +1861,8 @@ static int wifi_scan(enum connman_service_type
> type,
> > > struct connman_device *device,
> > > const char *ssid, unsigned int ssid_len,
> > > const char *identity, const char* passphrase,
> > > - const char *security, void *user_data)
> > > + const char *security, bool force_full_scan,
> > > + void *user_data)
> >
> > I am not partucilar fan of adding a bool for this, because it is already
> > hard to figure out which parameters is what. Adding a bool makes it even
> > harder. Why not defining a enum for the forced scan?
>
> How about putting ssid, ssid_len, identity, passphrase, security and
> force_full_scan into scan_params structure?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/attachments/20181116/75355415/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 37, Issue 7
**************************************
