[PATCH 1/5] wpa_supplicant: Collect and use extended data on used frequencies

[Peer, Ilan]

Hi Jouni,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni Malinen [mailto:j at w1.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 21:11
> To: Peer, Ilan
> Cc: hostap at lists.shmoo.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] wpa_supplicant: Collect and use extended data on
> used frequencies
> 
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:12:04PM +0000, Peer, Ilan wrote:
> > Sure. Already started working on adding channel selection tests. Hope we
> have something ready by next week.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> By the way, I added concurrent_persistent_group today which hit one the
> code paths here, but that is still with single channel concurrency. It is the
> MCC with both two and more supported channels cases that are more
> lacking (and well, have been on my to-do list for quite some time for two
> channel case, but certainly useful to get help in this area regardless).
> 

Will have a look at this.

> > > I found couple of cases that would not seem to work properly in some
> > > cases (P2P group on wlan0 was not handled correctly, i.e., need to
> > > check current_ssid->p2p_group instead of wpa_s->p2p_group_interface;
> > > and assumption in wpas_p2p_pick_best_used_freq() about all
> > > frequencies being valid for P2P which is certainly not the case in
> > > many cases since this includes operating channels from non-P2P
> > > station interfaces). I tried to fix these while reviewing the changes, but
> I'm not sure how complete that was.
> >
> > The assumption was intended for whoever called this API, so the caller has
> to guarantee that the assumption is valid (that why before calling this API, I
> always used wpas_p2p_valid_oper_freqs()).
> 
> Maybe I missed one of the code paths when looking at this briefly.
> 
> > > My current work version from the review is here:
> > > http://w1.fi/p/p2p-freq/
> >
> > Started to review them and few changes might be required. How would
> you like me to send the changes? I can take you patches and edit them and
> send again.
> 
> That's probably the most convenient way. I have those commits in a
> temporary branch, but since I know to expect updates on them, I'm not
> modifying the commits for now.
> 

Great. I'm on it.

Thanks,

Ilan.