From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4D4220698 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764063042; cv=none; b=ZB4mkdv4D0NoprdRx8U2kkigAjhg+MI+rwavK5TYL+cJH8dRZYNKoDySwMf9gRQB+y3i+91H5YjrxCAaWBMro7JLQ8xOY5jlGjxZpl4MYx3AA1QvKim5eTXV4+GMIgo09OBJ8DPLfwBGDv9R0Q3NuOiNd1bIyNcWCVJzlFTlNeQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764063042; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WduaUWmxj9xxZ1EbHkIsI2lIVx0DnRQHV4kX4ZPrE0I=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=kY1XmTfOkRl4Zqbli405lH9x+g2U3ld5H9AurZwMfxa/bhdWNzKNqpQRdjx9Mb2XJ4WaBWhkkQgfaYXX8YUeNePniPLaG2K5/qrjh4TvR78N+gw2SL6mRvnnY6lKi71aFzCQBz8SBPy5jKPlFQf+N9zNd66Pr/yYqyQxiZU7zw4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=F2vl1DiF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="F2vl1DiF" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=WduaUWmxj9xxZ1EbHkIsI2lIVx0DnRQHV4kX4ZPrE0I=; t=1764063041; x=1765272641; b=F2vl1DiFBlLbMUWyRuyVk/3yiqmoM/Mn7ds393IHGq9u9KG rfB14KjsiU4hWOGOUjMhRmtai5HfEnV4+llUvq28J8KZww/RWXOFI9bOSjMl9D6Dv3h2LQJlc31Ae kgUua/QVWbvLJOBIrDlzDf00sjTx7Tq7qDKZ/YryyinErfvLp3SD9TzMQQ1wJc6BcHbS1AKkLqbW6 EDCNayq+sZyP0TKPJIAtnAp8GUmyXQNwQhu0g5NLM6oiHVx9iZPDBcc5zFt1NH7bjJK8J+P6mw+Rn t1mZqwjriaFH7ApB6g/whHcJMjUg7ARO4PxAAxdPjgs+fpa1OfMJS8XN9JpeN1SQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vNpNd-0000000Be3N-43Lt; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 10:30:38 +0100 Message-ID: <41f2d55eb0921a95db6a3445800df67dfe99e7ee.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: mac80211: correct FILS status codes From: Johannes Berg To: Ria Thomas , Jeff Johnson Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lachlan.hodges@morsemicro.com, pradeep.reddy@morsemicro.com, simon@morsemicro.com Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 10:30:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20251125033915.3m2uczkde2nqcoya@1207> (sfid-20251125_043925_657383_C69B50A9) References: <20251124061111.3627341-1-ria.thomas@morsemicro.com> <20251124125637.3936154-1-ria.thomas@morsemicro.com> <29ebeb55-1528-42b0-a692-11f20097fca8@oss.qualcomm.com> <20251125033915.3m2uczkde2nqcoya@1207> (sfid-20251125_043925_657383_C69B50A9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2025-11-25 at 09:09 +0530, Ria Thomas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 09:52:31AM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On 11/24/2025 4:56 AM, Ria Thomas wrote: > > > The FILS status codes are set to 108/109, but the IEEE 802.11-2020 > >=20 > > Note that the current version is IEEE Std 802.11-2024, and it would be = useful > > to directly reference Table 9-80. > Thanks, I've noted that the current revision is 802.11-2024.I cited > 802.11-2020 because it=E2=80=99s the first revision that defines these st= atus > codes. I can switch to 802.11-2024 if that=E2=80=99s preferred. >=20 Didn't really matter here, but generally I guess it would be better. I did apply this now, but I do wonder if we're better off just removing unused values? We don't (even pretend to) maintain a full definition of everything 802.11 in the kernel, and don't need to either? johannes