On Monday, July 30, 2012 00:50:03 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
@@ -687,21 +687,9 @@ int batadv_recv_roam_adv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
batadv_hard_iface *recv_if) struct batadv_priv *bat_priv =
netdev_priv(recv_if-soft_iface); struct batadv_roam_adv_packet
*roam_adv_packet;
struct
On Monday, July 30, 2012 01:15:30 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in case of client roaming a new global entry is added while a corresponding
local one is still present. In this case the node can safely pass the WIFI
flag from the local to the global entry
And why would we want that ?
Regards,
Marek
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:56:51AM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 00:50:03 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
@@ -687,21 +687,9 @@ int batadv_recv_roam_adv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
batadv_hard_iface *recv_if) struct batadv_priv *bat_priv =
netdev_priv(recv_if-soft_iface);
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 01:15:30 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in case of client roaming a new global entry is added while a corresponding
local one is still present. In this case the node can safely pass the WIFI
flag from the
On Monday, July 30, 2012 11:23:43 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 01:15:30 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in case of client roaming a new global entry is added while a
corresponding local one is still present. In
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:47:03AM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 11:23:43 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 01:15:30 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in case of client roaming a new global
On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07:04 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
And why is this explanation not part of the commit message ?
Because it is left as exercise for the reader ;-)
Actually I didn't mention it because the Ap-Isolation part is a
consequence. What this patch wants to fix is an issue in
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:12:19PM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07:04 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
And why is this explanation not part of the commit message ?
Because it is left as exercise for the reader ;-)
Actually I didn't mention it because the Ap-Isolation
Hello Guido,
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 03:34:29PM -0300, Gui Iribarren wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Simon Wunderlich
OK, so you say that it doesn't work when you simply add eth0 batctl, but it
works
with the bridge?
Exactly.
With a caveat: turns out adding plain eth0 (no
