On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 09:58 -0800, Thomas Pedersen wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 17:02 -0800, Thomas Pedersen wrote: >> > >> >> - pos = skb_put(skb, ie_ssid_len); >> >> - *pos++ = WLAN_EID_SSID; >> >> + if (ieee80211_vif_is_mesh(vif)) { >> >> + pos = skb_put(skb, 2 + 2 + ssid_len); >> >> + *pos++ = WLAN_EID_SSID; >> >> + *pos++ = 0; >> >> + /* NOTE: mesh ID will be out of order */ >> > >> > Why put it out of order? >> > >> > Also I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to translate "SSID" from >> > the userspace API to "mesh ID" silently? Might make more sense to have >> > those separately maybe? I mean, it seems reasonable to even think you >> > might scan for a mesh network when you're not a mesh interface, for >> > example? >> >> Yeah that makes more sense, but will obviously require more work. >> I'll just drop this for now. > > I guess the other question is if you actually want this at all. I mean, > if you just do patch 1 and 3, then unless you want to actively scan for > multiple networks you can just include the mesh ID in the IE parameter. > Seems for many purposes that could be acceptable already. Now I'm not > saying that you shouldn't put it into the kernel, there certainly could > be value in that, just saying that in terms of effort that might be > easier?
Yeah, allowing userspace to specify the mesh ID IEs would be easy for now. Thanks, -- Thomas _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
