Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] wifi: wireless: deny wireless extensions on MLO-capable devices

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>]

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:

> On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 12:51 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:
>> 
>> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
>> > 
>> > These are new devices that will be introduced into the market
>> 
>> s/new/Wi-Fi 7/?
>> 
>> > in 2023, with new drivers. Wireless extensions haven't been in
>> > real development since 2006. Since wireless has evolved a lot,
>> > and continues to evolve significantly with MLO, there's really
>> 
>> s/MLO/Multi-Link Operation/?
>> 
>> It would good to spell out the acronym at least once per commit log.
>
> :)
>
>> > +++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c
>> > @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev)
>> >  	    dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext &&
>> >  	    dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats) {
>> >  		wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext();
>> > +		if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO)
>> > +			return NULL;
>> 
>> Should we have a some kind of warning in this case as well? Otherwise
>> the user has no idea why it stopped working, right?
>
> Well it's added after the warning wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(), so it
> already prints the warning from the previous.
>
> I guess we could make an argument to the warning and modify the message
> if it's rejected?

Sorry, I was blind again :) I first read that the call to
wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext() was removed, but clearly it wasn't, and
IMHO that warning is enough. So please ignore this comment.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches