New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

hostapd: add ht and vht support in handle event function #898

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@PolynomialDivision
Contributor

PolynomialDivision commented Apr 25, 2018

Add ht and vht support. If a device sends a probe request, the ht and vht fields indicate if the device can use ht and vht.

Signed-off-by: Nick Hainke vincent@systemli.org

@dedeckeh dedeckeh added the packages label Apr 26, 2018

@nbd168

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nbd168 commented May 7, 2018

Please squash all commits into one (especially since commit 1 is reverted and applied differently in commit 3, and commit 2 is useless)

@PolynomialDivision

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

PolynomialDivision commented May 17, 2018

@nbd168 Done. :)

@PolynomialDivision

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

PolynomialDivision commented Jun 7, 2018

@nbd168 Can you merge this pull request? :)

@jow-

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jow- commented Jun 27, 2018

Wouldn't it be better to expose the capability values as-is? If one is interested in the actual caps, he would need to extend or change the interface yet again.

hostapd: add ht and vht support in handle event function
Add ht and vht capabilities. If a device sends a probe request,
the capabilities are added.

Signed-off-by: Nick Hainke <vincent@systemli.org>
@PolynomialDivision

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

PolynomialDivision commented Jun 28, 2018

@jow- This creates more overhead but that are intersting information...
Maybe we could do it like the notify_response flag in the hostapd_ubus_bss.
So a subscriber can choose which information he actually wants...
Furthermore, I don't get it why the response flag is an int and not u8. I think this should be changed to save memory?

@blogic

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

blogic commented Jul 30, 2018

merged, Thanks !

@blogic blogic closed this Jul 30, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment