From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Purushottam Kushwaha <pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jouni@qca.qualcomm.com,
usdutt@qti.qualcomm.com, amarnath@qca.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cfg80211: Check radar_detect and num_different_channels with beacon interface combinations.
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:27:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1477052876.4068.40.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1476371730-23027-1-git-send-email-pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com>
On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 20:45 +0530, Purushottam Kushwaha wrote:
> This commit enhances the current beacon interval validation to also
> consider
> the "radar_detect" and "num_different_channels".
>
> Move calculation of GCD for all beaconing interfaces to
> "cfg80211_iter_combinations".
>
> Rename "cfg80211_validate_beacon_int" to
> "cfg80211_validate_beacon_combination"
> as the validation considers other parameters.
So this was better, but I think we're mixing too many things in here.
I'm not convinced, for example, that checking if radar is required is
really the right thing, it might still be enabled even if it's not
required (any more, regulatory may change)?
Not that I don't think that's a worthwhile goal - moving more of the
data/calculation back into cfg80211 - but I don't think it should be
mixed in here.
I've just sent out a few patches that, I think, implement the necessary
validation for just the beacon intervals, without all this extra
baggage. Please take a look and let me know what you think.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-21 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-13 15:15 [PATCH v3] cfg80211: Check radar_detect and num_different_channels with beacon interface combinations Purushottam Kushwaha
2016-10-21 12:27 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2016-10-24 11:59 ` Undekari, Sunil Dutt
2016-10-24 13:35 ` Johannes Berg
2016-10-24 14:20 ` Undekari, Sunil Dutt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1477052876.4068.40.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=amarnath@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=jouni@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com \
--cc=usdutt@qti.qualcomm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).