On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 13:03 +0200, Jirka Klimes wrote: > > 1) lets use "nm_utils_wifi_*" for the function names since they are clearly > > wifi specific. > > > > 2) for nm_utils_find_next_channel() can you describe the @direction > > argument a bit more? Something like: > > > > @direction: whether going downward (0 or less) or upward (1 or more) > > > > Okay. > Fixed in 1_libnm-util_band_channel.patch. > > > > patch2 : > > > Allow ad-hoc connections using band/channel - reworked the previous patch > > > to use new libnm-util code. > > > And one addition: when switched to infrastructure, band and channels are > > > set to automatic. (Because compatible checking has been enhanced to > > > compare channels too.) > > > > For now, lets desensitize the band/channel widgets in the editor when in > > infrastructure mode since the supplicant isn't capable of using those > > values yet. Have to get around to patching the supplicant. > > > > Do you mean using just sentitive/insensitive instead of show/hide here? > > I've made both variants: > 2a - previous show/hide concept
I think show/hide is most appropriate since we can't use it there yet anyway, so it doesn't need to be shown yet. So the patches look good; feel free to push (2a) and (1) to git. Thanks! Dan > 2b - do sensitive/insensitive band&channel > > I've removed the resetting band&channel to 0 when switching to > "infrastructure" mode. > My previous concern was that letting it set could prevent NM from connecting > when looking for compatible connection. (But the check is there just for fake > AP now.) > > > > Jirka > > > > > > PS: > > > Dan, > > > There are some explicit channels in > > > nm-device-wifi.c:build_supplicant_config for ad-hoc connections. > > > Is it intentional to use just these channels? > > > > The intention here was to only choose non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11 > > and 13) when automatically picking a channel. WiFi channels overlap > > since the channel bandwidth is 20MHz, but the channels are only > > separated by 5Mhz. Putting an AP on channel 2 when something is already > > on channel 1 just increases interference for both since they have a > > 15MHz overlap. > > > > The 13 is there (even though it overlaps with 11) to ensure that France > > or Japan (I forget which) got a valid channel since previously most of > > the 802.11bg band was illegal in one of those countries. > > > Agreed. I thought it could be due to interference. > This helps in case of multiple NMs will activate adhoc. However there is > still > a problem if something else use another interfering channel. But of course, > there's no way to avoid it. > > > Thanks! > > Dan > > Thanks for the comments. > > Jirka _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
