From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:44513 "EHLO mail2.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689AbbLPXUU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:20:20 -0500 Message-ID: <5671F1B2.2010503@candelatech.com> (sfid-20151217_002026_922423_5234C182) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:20:18 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Adam R. Welle" , Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Bob Copeland Subject: Re: question on "mac80211_hwsim: support any address in userspace" References: <5670DA9A.4010102@candelatech.com> (sfid-20151216_042934_976896_DCE1A2B3) <1450257464.3159.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <56716386.4070107@candelatech.com> <1450272308.8247.11.camel@sipsolutions.net> <567168AF.4060804@candelatech.com> <1450273362.8247.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> <2DE9F46DD36D2A458CD6347950113F2535C1ED@marathon> <5671E23A.1070502@candelatech.com> <2DE9F46DD36D2A458CD6347950113F2535CA6D@marathon> In-Reply-To: <2DE9F46DD36D2A458CD6347950113F2535CA6D@marathon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/16/2015 02:56 PM, Adam R. Welle wrote: >>> Could somebody provide background information on why the decision was >>> made to use a second address for the netlink frames instead of the >>> same address as was used for the non-netlink frames? >> >> I would be fine with always using the first address instead of the >> second, in case that helps someone. >> >> We could also set the address at creation time easily enough. Then it >> could still be unique across many machines if you managed it. > > I actually apply a patch for that. I have added a module parameter which > is used as the MAC address for the first radio, and I increment the final > octet for each additional radio. This is so that my users do not have > to manually reset the MAC address to get a unique one. I apply the address > to both addresses mentioned above though I only use the netlink datapath. > > If there is interest in this I can submit it as an RFC patch tomorrow. I'd rather see support for specifying an arbitrary MAC upon creation with a netlink attribute than a module parameter... Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com