From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:60828 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755365AbcJUM2E (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:28:04 -0400 Message-ID: <1477052876.4068.40.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20161021_142809_034368_11DCF814) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cfg80211: Check radar_detect and num_different_channels with beacon interface combinations. From: Johannes Berg To: Purushottam Kushwaha Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jouni@qca.qualcomm.com, usdutt@qti.qualcomm.com, amarnath@qca.qualcomm.com Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:27:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1476371730-23027-1-git-send-email-pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <1476371730-23027-1-git-send-email-pkushwah@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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