All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:07:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb6a9c5e-0817-3b63-1e2f-d6bbff867b05@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483958921.17582.20.camel@sipsolutions.net>



On 9-1-2017 11:48, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 20:59 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>>
>> From what Dmitry listed I guess there's really only one.
> 
> Ok. I guess I need to go back to that then.
> 
>> Early on in the thread Luca gave some other examples of scan
>> extensions so may need to consider notification/dump methods that are
>> extensible. It seems awkward to have a single "initiate" command and
>> a couple of "notification/retrieval" commands. It may not be so bad
>> as long as it is clear which retrieval command goes with a
>> notification.
> 
> Well, we might not even need different commands. We need different
> storage internally, but if you request the results for a given scan ID
> then you might get a totally different result format? Though that
> wouldn't lend itself well to query "everything you have" which is also
> useful. But even then, it could be done by passing the appropriate
> "report type" attribute to the dump command - we need that anyway for
> trigger.

True. With "report type" attribute you do not mean the actual
report_type thing, right. Hopefully you mean the parameter attribute
that implicitly relates to a "report type". The risk here is that it
requires careful description of what user-space needs to look for if it
gets a notification. I think having separate notification/retrieval
commands lowers the risk of misinterpretation.

> I think with that discussion we're getting ahead of ourselves though -
> do we really know that we just need the two result types
> 
>  * full, and
>  * partial (for history scan)
> 
> and have we even defined the attributes we want in the partial one?

Not sure if we're getting ahead of ourselves. Yes, we have to determine
attributes for each scan "report type", but it is not a prerequisite for
the other topic. I guess to answer the question about the partial
results attributes we need to know what the possible higher-level
use-cases are. Other source of information would be to look what is done
for g-scan in Android "M" or "N", but not sure if that is best approach
as we may not consider all use-cases.

Regards,
Arend

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-09 12:07 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
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 [this message]
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=eb6a9c5e-0817-3b63-1e2f-d6bbff867b05@broadcom.com \
    --to=arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com \
    --cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --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.