Re: [PATCH] Ad-hoc channels: patches respin

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 13:03 +0200, Jirka Klimes wrote:
> > 1) lets use "nm_utils_wifi_*" for the function names since they are clearly
> > wifi specific.
> > 
> > 2) for nm_utils_find_next_channel() can you describe the @direction
> > argument a bit more?  Something like:
> > 
> > @direction: whether going downward (0 or less) or upward (1 or more)
> > 
> 
> Okay.
> Fixed in 1_libnm-util_band_channel.patch.
> 
> > > patch2 :
> > > Allow ad-hoc connections using band/channel - reworked the previous patch
> > > to use new libnm-util code.
> > > And one addition: when switched to infrastructure, band and channels are
> > > set to automatic. (Because compatible checking has been enhanced to
> > > compare channels too.)
> > 
> > For now, lets desensitize the band/channel widgets in the editor when in
> > infrastructure mode since the supplicant isn't capable of using those
> > values yet.  Have to get around to patching the supplicant.
> > 
> 
> Do you mean using just sentitive/insensitive instead of show/hide here?
> 
> I've made both variants:
> 2a - previous show/hide concept

I think show/hide is most appropriate since we can't use it there yet
anyway, so it doesn't need to be shown yet.

So the patches look good; feel free to push (2a) and (1) to git.

Thanks!
Dan

> 2b - do sensitive/insensitive band&channel
> 
> I've removed the resetting band&channel to 0 when switching to 
> "infrastructure" mode.
> My previous concern was that letting it set could prevent NM from connecting 
> when looking for compatible connection. (But the check is there just for fake 
> AP now.)
> 
> > > Jirka
> > > 
> > > PS:
> > > Dan,
> > > There are some explicit channels in
> > > nm-device-wifi.c:build_supplicant_config for ad-hoc connections.
> > > Is it intentional to use just these channels?
> > 
> > The intention here was to only choose non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11
> > and 13) when automatically picking a channel.  WiFi channels overlap
> > since the channel bandwidth is 20MHz, but the channels are only
> > separated by 5Mhz.  Putting an AP on channel 2 when something is already
> > on channel 1 just increases interference for both since they have a
> > 15MHz overlap.
> > 
> > The 13 is there (even though it overlaps with 11) to ensure that France
> > or Japan (I forget which) got a valid channel since previously most of
> > the 802.11bg band was illegal in one of those countries.
> > 
> Agreed. I thought it could be due to interference.
> This helps in case of multiple NMs will activate adhoc. However there is still 
> a problem if something else use another interfering channel. But of course, 
> there's no way to avoid it.
> 
> > Thanks!
> > Dan
> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> Jirka