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 886DE3BA23F for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 08:46:24 +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=1778489185; cv=none; b=qTC4etpk8eEkI9uSVi8Sq+TEJiXuCSZXFg+oSvkNLiTEbIZjxDon89hvUGUuSrH8XfwvHyr5cCWmJylEoyaE77ZYHV2+bbkDXXhwJFygItJisE0+IZxcc/oIHG5dsnoQyfICWlFmFVLCzfbJsIX/06ceNKd+shDa8cPbgtHJRA0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778489185; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TyT44KWK1HJdopQrgLzz5/3JZdRoN2h4zUjRZuLqqSE=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=erZb+/6AMdOe01HdbgXbxf/QQ1SWAm+qgaBy1cl4f0stYfzOBPpP0hl6qHaz+5kcblb4HkqpW04gkI5i+SvMDd1A7x0kK1msBpOFez50tYcbOaTdkpFwD+SMfwwqeVbPIzVjcpH2uy3cB6i0hK83J2QevzKOaIAq2P1tDRdJg2E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=BuhcZgk7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none 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="BuhcZgk7" 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=TyT44KWK1HJdopQrgLzz5/3JZdRoN2h4zUjRZuLqqSE=; t=1778489184; x=1779698784; b=BuhcZgk7f19hxuV82DzDPlzqnL7c6GAFdMSovc/mC/OjzKv VAbZWqrcSeiSXLOi7mmKI87YO7glYYyirrc/ck4Q1dLTSrk0xa+2UqzOs8JSlz1RrTmvW89Tzv79a Ih+53mvOIaZdT0T6b2MN0i2L7/1hdGvReRL8bvzD7CMuJt76d0lWupPLPL5MJqRF3OZIyLlQZTZCY SowdXuEzevWox7TRbJsQ8zdgS5T2Y5MaM+RfSaBqp+zbkqhpiYdCLwIk2NFSNzO+ehKpmt0sjAoEA md+rEoNy4SCGTscimAKbCphLypnWYwZwQlQA4PZaKT2etXUbonWpWkdx16gXn2dQ==; 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 1wMMHM-0000000Ec6B-21yf; Mon, 11 May 2026 10:46:20 +0200 Message-ID: <72b480830dee1489bc28246d13102048635de5db.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next] wifi: mac80211: Fix ADDBA request rejection after MLD link removal From: Johannes Berg To: Manish Dharanenthiran Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Hari Naraayana Desikan Kannan Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 10:46:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20260415-addba-req-v1-1-6eb9a33d8ca6@oss.qualcomm.com> <1f57207139c3fb955459425deda4d06c374ae212.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1d06b2a3-66d8-4c27-b965-6c21f80b7539@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 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 Mon, 2026-05-11 at 11:56 +0530, Manish Dharanenthiran wrote: > No, there is no implementations that combine these two, but there are=20 > cases where the update AddBA request can be received from the station=20 > with link reconfiguration. >=20 > For instance, if a station associated in 2 GHz, later with link=20 > reconfiguration station can either move to 5 GHz or it can add 5 GHz (as= =20 > MLD). Station then can send a AddBA request to update the window size or= =20 > other related parameters. Ah, well, OK - technically an implementation can do that all the time (and technically we can refuse it all the time), but I guess then that some implementations do it with link reconfiguration, and also don't like the refusal :) >=20 > We believe that a no-op update is not required (or at-least we couldn't= =20 > think of a case in which that is actually needed) as there can might be= =20 > an actual change in the subsequent AddBA request. I just think that once we require an UPDATE call from the driver, that raises the question of whether we should even call it for a no-op. This seems a bit strange? And if we don't then we wouldn't require it for no- ops either, which is probably generally good for drivers that don't (immediately) implement the UPDATE. johannes