Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

> > Well eventually we also have to clear for location if we run out of
> > memory, that usually means dumping them out to the host, no?
> 
> Being out of memory and consuming more memory are different
> things, but I agree - maybe we don't need to worry about it.

Well, reaching the limit of what we're willing to spend on it is
equivalent I guess :)

> > I'm not entirely sure about this case - surely noticing "we can do
> > better now" is still better than waiting for being able to make the
> > perfect decision?
> 
> Maybe we can just keep flag saying that currently available results
> were not received by usual full scan.

Elsewhere we were planning per-channel results, and a cookie to filter
them - perhaps we could have a similar thing where you may even have to
request these scan results specifically with a certain cookie you got
from the scanning, or so. Or indicate the cookie there so you can tie
it back to the scan request somehow?

> So, let's summarize:
> Instead of creating new type of generic scan with special types,
> we want to go with additional expansion of scheduled scan options and
> parameters (in order not to "multiply entities"), including ability
> to send new scheduled scan request without stopping previous one.
> 
> Is it Ok?

Sounds fine to me.

johannes