From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6127C282C8 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:08:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7E62171F for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:08:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726669AbfA1NIr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:08:47 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60090 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726611AbfA1NIr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:08:47 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2877281DEA; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.219]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D48600D7; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:04:28 +0100 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Felix Fietkau Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] mt76x02: use mask for vifs Message-ID: <20190128130427.GB6002@redhat.com> References: <20190124222040.GA2873@localhost.localdomain> <20190125082556.GA2180@redhat.com> <20190125090236.GA2761@p1372.fit.wifi.vutbr.cz> <20190125094757.GA11700@redhat.com> <20190125102545.GA27731@p1372.fit.wifi.vutbr.cz> <20190125124148.GB4079@redhat.com> <20190128090201.GB4132@redhat.com> <20190128111601.GA6002@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:29:27PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2019-01-28 12:16, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:41:45AM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> > >> Moreover I am a little worried about tpt regressions with this patch. > >> > >> Are you sure that if you use complete different mac addresses on a multivif scenario > >> > >> you can get the same tpt on all the interfaces? Could you please provide some > >> > >> tpt results? > >> > > > >> > > How exactly posted patch can cause tpt regression ? > >> > > > >> > > Posted patch just add possibility to configure HW MAC address > >> > > by this: > >> > > > >> > > iw dev wlan0 del > >> > > iw phy phy0 interface add wlan0 type managed addr 00:11:22:33:44:55 > >> > > > >> > > what is feature of mt76x2u. Patch just extend that possibly to other > >> > > mt76x02 devices and allow to remove custom mt76x2u add_interfacea > >> > > callback. > >> > The main part that could cause issues is that you're changing the way > >> > that the vif index is calculated. Without the patch, it's calculated > >> > from the MAC address in a way consistent with what the hardware expects. > >> > With the patch, it's just allocated from a mask. > >> > The vif index ends up being passed down to the hardware as a BSS index > >> > WCID attribute in mt76x02_mac_wcid_setup. > >> > We would have to run some tests with multiple AP interfaces, bringing up > >> > secondary interfaces in a different order to see if there are any > >> > regressions there if the BSS index no longer matches the MAC address > >> > based index. > >> > >> Ok, that objection make sense. I'll check that. > > > > I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or current code is > > wrong. But when I configure multi bssid's is hostapd.conf like this: > > > > 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > 06:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > 0a:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > > > hostapd fail with "Too many bits in the BSSID mask" error . To make hostapd > > work, I have configure bssid's like this: > Do you have a bssid mask set? I don't think the current code does that. > Also, in OpenWrt, I didn't see any issue like that. Not sure if there is bssid mask option , seems hostapd calculate that from provided bssid= fields. However I realized there is use_driver_iface_addr=1 and that make things work as expected. Thanks Stanislaw