From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:34479 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755702AbZEDSQF (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 14:16:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:13:57 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Richard Farina Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: report operating frequency rather than current Message-ID: <20090504181357.GA19022@tuxdriver.com> References: <1241452330.8683.49.camel@johannes.local> <49FF2AE5.6040104@gmail.com> <1241460130.8683.85.camel@johannes.local> <49FF2FE8.8010004@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <49FF2FE8.8010004@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 02:11:52PM -0400, Richard Farina wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: >> Umm, if _you_ set channel 11 then you _will_ see channel 11. It's just >> that when it's scanning and happens to be on channel 132 instead of 11, >> while you previously set 11, you will _after_ this patch see 11, not >> 132. >> >> > Yes, and at what point does it seem like a good idea to hide the channel > the wifi card is on? If I set channel 11 and it is scanning instead of > locked on channel 11 then I should see the current channel the hardware > is on. This seems like an aweful idea to me, granted, it may help a few > people that don't understand how scanning works, but hiding the truth is > never a good idea. NACK. I can see what you mean, but I think showing seemingly random fluctuations in channel assignments is at best distracting. Don't you agree that most people are more interested in seeing the configuration state than the transient state of the hardware? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.