On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 10:10 +0000, Jean Pierre TOSONI wrote: > > > > However, it looks like you're right and ieee80211_bss_info_update() > > doesn't take the flag into account. Bit strange that we even have > > the flag I guess, since we treat 0 as an invalid value in various > > places, being too high power to realistically receive anyway. > > The problem is that 0 is invalid as a SIGNAL_DBM value but this is > dubious for a SIGNAL_UNSPEC value which appears to be still in use > in a couple of drivers.
Huh, good point, that's ancient history to me and I forget :-) > > Want to send a patch? There seem to be a few more places as well, > > I am working on a 3.18 kernel; so I can either make the patch from > an old compat-wireless, or make the patch from your last tree but > I cannot test it; are you interested anyways? The only useful patch would be on the last tree. :-) > > e.g. > > in rx.c for cfg80211_report_obss_beacon() and cfg80211_rx_mgmt(). > > There is also mlme.c, the ifmgd->ave_beacon_signal should not be updated > with an invalid signal; > and in the last tree, the ibss join passes an uninitialized signal > value to cfg80211_inform_bss_frame_data(). Good catch! johannes