From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:44258 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754281Ab2HARmM (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:42:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1343842929.4638.17.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120801_194216_410486_EE91A9A3) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] Fix inability to configure adhoc in 3.4.x From: Johannes Berg To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, liang.li@windriver.com Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:42:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120801173847.GA13879@windriver.com> References: <1343837663-12645-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <1343838717.4638.9.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20120801173847.GA13879@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 13:38 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > 1) cherry pick 8e8b41f9d, and all the driver specific changes it requires > > > > > > 2) make a sub-commit for stable that just takes the total==1 from #1. > > > > > > 3) patch iwlwifi/iwl-mac80211.c and add ".types = BIT(NL80211_IFTYPE_ADHOC)" > > > > > > 4) treat ADHOC as a universal feature that everyone has. > > > > > > The following patch does #4, and in theory it could be used in mainline > > > and then cherry picked back to stable. But we weren't 100% sure if that > > > was the best solution, since neither of us are really wireless people, > > > hence all the detail here. > > > > Thanks for the detailed analysis. Given 8e8b41f9d, I don't think any > > mainline changes are actually needed? > > Perhaps not. I know Liang was looking at the ath5k and ath9k changes: > > 9b4760e ath5k: add possible wiphy interface combinations > 20c8e8d ath9k: add possible wiphy interface combinations > > and thinking that the above commits plus the "total==1" change > wouldn't fix any ATH multifunction cards (if they exist) in the > ad-hoc use case - but we didn't have such hardware to test with. I'm not sure what you mean by "wouldn't fix" here -- the way the devices advertise their multi-virtual-interface support is that they do not support IBSS (ad-hoc) in combination with any other interface. Therefore, pure IBSS should be covered by the total==1 case? johannes