<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Should we maybe switch to using iwinfo though ubus in our Lua code? Can we use that to scan for networks? <br>Could that be a more robust solution? <br><a href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/ubus#lua_module_for_ubus">http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/ubus#lua_module_for_ubus</a><br>
<a href="https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=57554">https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=57554</a><br><br></div>If I understand the following two pages correctly the new luci (LuCI2) will also use ubus, over http. <br><a href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/luci2">http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/luci2</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/ubus#access_to_ubus_over_http">http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/ubus#access_to_ubus_over_http</a><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jow@openwrt.org" target="_blank">jow@openwrt.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Peter,<br>
<br>
I suspect the culprit is nl80211_wait() which calls nl_recvmsgs()<br>
internally.<br>
<br>
To overcome this problem we need to restructure the nl80211 code to use<br>
nonblocking sockets and then extend the nl80211_wait() implementation to<br>
have a timeout.<br>
<br>
~ Jow<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
openwrt-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org">openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>