All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: dimitrysh@google.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 15:28:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480948100.31788.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <94eb2c110db85c2379054172dad0@google.com> (sfid-20161116_235236_736106_A8DBAB02)

Hi Dmitry,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier.

>    Currently we have sched scan with possibility of various
> intervals. We would like to extend it to support also
> different types of scan.

"Different types of scan" is a bit misleading though, isn't it? I mean,
mostly they differ in the reporting modes - the scanning itself still
happens at "various intervals"?

>    In case of powerful wlan CPU, all this functionality
> can be offloaded.
>    In general case FW processes additional scan requests
> and puts them into queue based on start time and interval.
> Once current request is fulfilled, FW adds it (if interval != 0)
> again to the queue with proper interval. If requests are
> overlapping, new request can be combined with either one before,
> or one after, assuming that requests are not mutually exclusive.
>    Combining requests is done by combining scan channels, ssids,
> bssids and types of scan result. Once combined request was fulfilled
> it will be reinserted as two (or three) different requests based on
> their type and interval.
>    Each request has attribute:
> Type: connectivity / location

I'm not super happy with this - after all, in theory nothing precludes
using the results for one thing or the other, it's just about when and
how they are gathered, no?

You do have a point wrt. an incomplete scan triggering something wrt.
roaming or so in the connection manager, but I think that if it finds a
better result there than the current connection it would make sense to
pick it - even without full information.

So ultimately, I think this might boil down to reporting the scan
finished more accurately/precisely, rather than saying the type of
scan?

> Report: none / batch / immediate

Not sure I see much point in "none"??

Can you define these more clearly? Do you think "batch" reporting
should be like the gscan buckets? Or actually have full information?

>    Request may have priority and can be inserted into
> the head of the queue.
>    Types of scans:
> - Normal scan
> - Scheduled scan
> - Hotlist (BSSID scan)
> - Roaming
> - AutoJoin

I think somebody else said this but I didn't find it now - I think this
would make more sense to define in terms of expected behaviour than use
cases for each type of scan.

johannes

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-12-05 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-16 22:47 [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal dimitrysh
2016-11-17 20:56 ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-18 23:53   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-22  7:24 ` Luca Coelho
2016-11-22 17:29   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-22 20:41     ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-22 20:54       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-11-23  8:43         ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-11-28 19:25           ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-05 14:28 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2016-12-05 18:32   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-07  6:44     ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-07 18:39       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-07 20:51         ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-08 22:35           ` Dmitry Shmidt
2016-12-09 11:10             ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:06             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-03 20:45               ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-04 13:28                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-04 20:32                   ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-05 11:46                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 13:39                       ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-05 13:44                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 19:59                           ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-09 10:48                             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:07                               ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-11 13:14                                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 20:45                       ` Dmitry Shmidt
2017-01-09 10:45                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 11:19                           ` Arend Van Spriel
2016-12-13 16:04         ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-21 10:20           ` [RFC] nl80211: allow multiple active scheduled scan requests Arend van Spriel
2017-01-02 10:44             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-03 12:25               ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-04  9:59                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-04 10:20                   ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-01-04 10:30                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-04 10:34                       ` Arend Van Spriel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1480948100.31788.15.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.