On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 02:12:45AM +0300, Slava Monich wrote: > Actually, this wasn't about connected interfaces. When the interface is > connected, AP roaming has to be supported, locking connection to BSSID of > the AP is not an option, there's no way to avoid active scans. > That's fine. > > What I had in mind was a scenario when the device running network manager > has more than one Wi-Fi interface, and those are not connected (but have to > be ready to be connected at any time). Passive scans produce lots of D-Bus > traffic, which creates serious load (I mean it, really serious load) on the > device. And yet, periodic scans on all those interfaces produce more or less > the same list of networks, needlessly wasting precious system resources. > > It seems to make every bit of sense to disable scans on all but one > disconnected Wi-Fi interface, and let the UI use the list of available APs > produced by that one single interface. And since no connection is involved > at this stage, it can't be a connection property, right? It's got to be an > org.freedesktop.NetworkManager.Device.Wireless property.
Correct. > And yes, it means that this property is not going to be persistent but it > doesn't need to be, since it has to be updated every time when the system > state changes (e.g. an interface appears or disappears, gets connected or > disconnected). Which is fine since this scenario implies a separate service > choosing which interface will do the scanning, that logic is product > specific and out of scope. > > Am I missing something? I don't know others' opinion, but this seems a legitimate use case to me, and I'm in favor of adding such D-bus property to the Device.Wireless interface. Beniamino
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
