From: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <ath12k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: fix assigning channel in activate links
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:56:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39b73ddd-5478-4599-a92b-00b274d2ce02@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16ad03533ab6aca65c3fe9db94ae53ad11fdb9d1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On 10/1/24 13:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 13:07 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
>>
>> First iterate and do only _ieee80211_link_use_channel() this part. Then
>> let the flow as usual and after stations are added, do the
>> link_info_changed() part.
>
> That would seem to make sense, it also matches assoc flow better.
> Although not sure that matters too much, since this is necessarily very
> different as it's while associated anyway.
>
>>> But also this seems to break out driver for other reasons, because it
>
> type - I meant "our driver"
>
>>> initializes rate control somewhere here and needs a station for that.
>>> Didn't look deeply into that yet though.
>>
>> Okay so doing as I said above could work -
>>
>> if (add) {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> for_each_set_bit(link_id, &rem, ..) {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> for_each_set_bit(link_id, &add ...) {
>> _ieee80211_link_use_channel()
>> }
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(sta, &local->sta_list, list) {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> ...
>>
>> for_each_set_bit(link_id, &add ....) {
>> now call
>> ieee80211_mgd_set_link_qos_params()
>> ieee80211_link_info_change_notify()
>> }
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> At least I tried both of these ways in hwsim. I dont see any failures.
>> Hence I thought why not move whole for loop to top instead.
>
> Right, I don't know - I guess I should try with our driver?
>
Yes please that would be of great help. Let me send a next version
having the changes as discussed above and then you could pick that for
testing and let us know whether it is working as expected by Intel driver?
It would be better if other MLO based drivers could also test this? I
mean if possible they could also test and let us know if this breaks any
of their expectations! Or if not test, at least ack this change?
--
Aditya
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-01 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-01 4:15 [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: fix assigning channel in activate links Aditya Kumar Singh
2024-10-01 6:31 ` Johannes Berg
2024-10-01 7:17 ` Aditya Kumar Singh
2024-10-01 7:22 ` Johannes Berg
2024-10-01 7:37 ` Aditya Kumar Singh
2024-10-01 8:08 ` Johannes Berg
2024-10-01 8:26 ` Aditya Kumar Singh [this message]
2024-10-01 8:28 ` Johannes Berg
2024-10-01 9:16 ` Aditya Kumar Singh
2024-10-01 6:32 ` Johannes Berg
2024-10-01 7:20 ` Aditya Kumar Singh
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=39b73ddd-5478-4599-a92b-00b274d2ce02@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_adisi@quicinc.com \
--cc=ath12k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/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