RE: [PATCH 2/2] wifi: mac80211: improve station iteration ergonomics

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-02-11 at 06:49 +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Hi Johannes,
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * for_each_station - iterate stations under wiphy mutex
> > > + * @sta: the iterator variable
> > > + * @hw: the HW to iterate for
> > > + */
> > > +#define for_each_station(sta, hw)                                      \
> > > +       for (sta = __ieee80211_iterate_stations(hw, NULL);              \
> > > +            sta;                                                       \
> > > +            sta = __ieee80211_iterate_stations(hw, sta))
> > > +
> >
> > I'm going to use for_each_station() in rtw89 driver, and the code in driver side
> > looks very simple! Thanks for this new API.
> >
> > However, without other callers rather than ieee80211_iterate_xxx(), I'd like
> > to know if it is expected that driver uses for_each_station()? Since help
> > text is added, I think it can be, right?
> 
> Yeah definitely, I wouldn't have added it to mac80211.h otherwise. I'm
> already using it in our driver, those patches just haven't gone upstream
> yet.
> 
> > Another question is that adding ieee80211_ prefix would be consistent with
> > other API? If you agree, I can make patches.
> >
> > As well as for_each_interface().
> 
> Yeah that's a good question I guess. There's some precedent either way,
> e.g. for_each_netdev() and netdev_for_each_uc_addr(), though it's a bit
> more along the lines of "object_for_each_member()" rather than
> "subsystem_for_each_something()" - which would be more like
> ieee80211_hw_for_each_station() here? The notable exception to this
> being damon_*. And objects are also missing, we have for_each_netdev(),
> not netns_for_each_netdev().
> 
> Oh and the order of arguments is also not consistent anywhere it seems.
> list_for_each_entry() is "iter, list, member", whereas for_each_netdev()
> is "net, iter".
> 
> I suppose I have no strong opinion about it, there doesn't really seem
> to be _any_ consistency around it. Maybe we should be consistent overall
> with them though in mac80211.h, and if renaming not just do the new
> ones? And maybe that's not worth the churn?
> 
> Yeah I don't know what to say I guess, I suppose that means if you feel
> strongly one or the other is better I'm happy to adjust :)

I don't have strong opinion to either one. Let's keep as it was. :)

Ping-Ke