From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f177.google.com (mail-pg1-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E4C35A3B2 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 17:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772213345; cv=none; b=MKQk4KLEQykJVXG0A1mfFKM5WUnSehrTDzP83Y0H9UPbnChDdnUHwAnub6u9lroThA4x0r5f7DpCPTurNBmav5FiAq9Te414isEcfcCsjtq29tcAlggEaeNzyzwqpv7xvmPQ/+dopmWLTgped0B725x8E+VSf+egGp8GtLY1oE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772213345; c=relaxed/simple; bh=paX6hCqfa444BwUEfU2EdTiAhRg9mR92oqCFN+XN27A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=op90FkJU40Y4KpGQriCAfgfI1wOyUigHXWqUa4/0XCjJApBiM/KmUPkNUkB8QMmzvAHhLgFvzeRWftPvWRXLZePqbjvOwR/IrTIx0Vl8IAN+Tl3TOPuyGL18XA21HBElA40VisSKg8lMol7Y0KDhZWwK+e/wl0HCc7aMo7mpIsM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=HIrng+XE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HIrng+XE" Received: by mail-pg1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-c06cb8004e8so935741a12.0 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:29:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1772213343; x=1772818143; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WVkc6ZPyuoqOkhwVhzdZ8Ion5jcRGNGi3A9fSjWSfmA=; b=HIrng+XEIr7mcsC2lqlQJoWWEwiwucNaEjGy++YtSllYmcVJNMrEsN0io+9ACB+YM0 K227Bk3xE9WTKOBC5KSJ24XPPnoRIMFw1MhUAnLDYgnVQO/eKPbS+VN6Tx972RHCZX6I PWmjG1CaYyOyPnZUgVE+afj1R7g2tjbPJXnSy9wnzu583oPx9x7bHW/uC7lrCSu8sEQR Hoqc7dDIH2SQavFhYcVPhUWbF/hz06X/4lTzNiawhb8iKYKpOgPWj96y4Vd5rmAhiEvn irUE4f7wBouOsnWAaIHqJ29muWHS59El33PIEraPAeCIDLGMxrwf21/hS69WZ2GaS6/4 eUVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1772213343; x=1772818143; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=WVkc6ZPyuoqOkhwVhzdZ8Ion5jcRGNGi3A9fSjWSfmA=; b=sOd5RG4dBN2LHmwdBJJ+Dvas3l+gcrSggqFN8TFJxJ401DxOWqq0NKvaXvnjWoiJBp efc4acVASarHmzg25IntT2LVzYaEXFMnr2q7PARjTCDMSEizT4wcXCe+LeykRkX7dB2u UQZqk+qoxp4VjvoMVlR99s4+EymqVbsRmuj8HmfQXESpEObiTHWtlb34JVHvS1O+mj0C VkcBSENfVvHEVacVIToMMAASm8MyUmZN3gh1FATXNVLhwDL8Tt9B4lJu0XaHeHP2nhG+ 7Xod/d9MgRpTqSghvHX+B68GpgwUbPfi5QvKWa811HktD2p0OKs/pVCRVDtXgMHBw8d8 gZIQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXx9x0xLpnddULabRtl88LNPHu4FumbwaV6/6QVfS+4etznIL1n4WcQsqWGaPL2TeqMNjwdLCQj9GqEjm0dOA==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyb2Vn2U5VqQhaCETC7RbOom3tub5k+UCGtglRwmgLTFK5NuvZg 49sMuRFJwpTSiY+JhBUdPq0iCSZ8TLXwn04/ZPrNc0jYKIY1mLG6KFwy X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzyjXbv+BD1+ndaMoSL2wJ8wtV5w0S6So4wFNCAZS7aeFwJO1TnP0QrjMlgj0M9 evE6k973wmWTYV6RczZbXhm/+27o2NViJObU+1ITAgrZrLNkpfJPRV0RmdGOYvBdBlicdkjuuso 04X9sSybJWMzjsO5XqidrtWkG8AxAhmvFOxRME07F35TzT6AkT/bAIbPz8CUKFTxRz1LySEIB0n VAuV6VxPEc38SbG6fY56buut9wiCQQyIUcp/vv4IwqeYC17Afjz4XTiFNv0M9UgHUXf2PaXNOmq 3T855RVTU2It4O7agH+YJp+9SswrVTz/RcuR4lDRT1n/5mLFJdVfymBIVpi/gWwIbLIdt8dY6Uq hFnXQ+FfL7T6WK6Ev42oLj4+EJvzgNXTo+MO9muE+BaeBP92DX+iFEH7OojBcmOBncLYQZ2gfLl LiwPT2hdRZt0c+iGbYqxtwOVQt5F3NuVKFrd5xIEHLzHjdGCW714gDWFed X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1f8a:b0:356:22ef:57b9 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-35965c280e5mr3850766a91.3.1772213343243; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.100.120.15] ([152.193.78.90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-359019780bfsm9638243a91.8.2026.02.27.09.29.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:29:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2e2818e5-ec6f-4bd7-8d2a-41f65652593f@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:28:59 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] wifi: ath10k: only wait for response to SET_KEY To: Baochen Qiang , Jeff Johnson , Richard Acayan , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org References: <20260210021249.12132-1-mailingradian@gmail.com> <20260210021249.12132-3-mailingradian@gmail.com> <3e1274fd-fe95-420c-94e3-ac34f497b7ae@oss.qualcomm.com> <8b468ad4-39e3-401f-a2f2-7484759137df@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: James Prestwood In-Reply-To: <8b468ad4-39e3-401f-a2f2-7484759137df@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 2/25/26 6:59 PM, Baochen Qiang wrote: > > On 2/13/2026 1:56 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> On 2/11/2026 6:11 PM, James Prestwood wrote: >>> On 2/9/26 6:12 PM, Richard Acayan wrote: >>>> When sending DELETE_KEY, the driver times out waiting for a response >>>> that doesn't come. Only wait for a response when sending SET_KEY. >>> We've run into the exact same thing on the QCA6174 and have been >>> carrying an identical patch to this for at least a year. >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/b2838a23-ea30-4dee-b513-f5471d486af2@gmail.com/ >> Baochen, >> Were we ever able to reproduce this? > unfortunately no > >> Do we normally always get a response to DELETE_KEY but in some instances it >> comes very late (or not at all)? > In my tests, I never hit this issue so seems can always get a response. > >> If we remove the wait, is there any concern that a late arriving DELETE_KEY >> response might be processed as a response to a subsequent SET_KEY command? > I would suggest not to remove the wait, but instead reduce the timeout to like 1s, just > like the patch "[RFC 0/1] wifi: ath10k: improvement on key removal failure". > Is there a specific reason to require a wait? I would be more ok if the way was sub-second, like 100ms or frankly even less (no idea what a "normal" amount of time is to delete a key). The issue is this effects roaming, and will delay roams by e.g. 1 second which is not ideal. I've also seen a 1 second wait cause issues with configurations that expect a very fast reassociation time. Even 1 second was causing a deauth. I dropped this patch a long time ago and replaced it with a similar patch being discussed here. So far, no issues, though I realize this is a limited test with specific hardware. Thanks, James >> /jeff