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 8FEAB3BFE33 for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 10:11:52 +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=1778494314; cv=none; b=SxmIMuSlJahtgbtYCxSdLJB1/E9QTQ4H1Qg8cA7Avxq2eDWp7lZ4RenM+bcEbtfXNC3k+8Zbmnw7S+6nOmBHD4Md2wkcIX5PPo3lTkIBT707/1/nnCc4D6Gh3AuTo01pUXxpwWV7F0thY5O2UCuZzxDWDGYtnHfSi3sTY2thHKs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778494314; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bxhrwC97Ysavxli17qNjhBbp8xXMJ93GllhGTrawqEw=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=iHxQ4lmxlhhRHHRhaTnp7ZgbXS4oMUdG2u9okTI8mXpCGaHMdVVRagOBQ9E1fr406T2EfgGlUo+usCnnuDQxQRmbN+gMoQPhlxMwzdbnlUufopiiVLC2tRLOQlQt9TxtKAgPqROAByUGV33pBThi48/u7WbyRpNEXs1/lhh+ljY= 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=EOk4ylQs; 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="EOk4ylQs" 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=bxhrwC97Ysavxli17qNjhBbp8xXMJ93GllhGTrawqEw=; t=1778494312; x=1779703912; b=EOk4ylQsPO6mDOYAmdoMud8WOFMBygGC9axVYSxLqwiRNNo KbtdM6eYrB2Q9P56XPPCrm24xrRt336ItL6nOAIr95VXPsAPEuY3gaiGL6Aq2SwJvNQ61BPKZw/9M 8G0TriwxcsWLoUQv16f0567zcAF8FZpqpaMtKh9DgTyVbZ6Whm9WMauAGkPV7OIEwWMwNZ6SOBJOg Obt3yzmN/bQTKpM12vHt7K8g+470mZ9BvhHmbkM0mUtzuHzE1N84WqdWX4QuFEaGcMO1xph00FjYS TGSCXvM3LuoWEhxS5lI7YDjbjsZL4ZiS0UpsDJOIpurcA6rZeU0rSPVgEdXPKWdQ==; 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 1wMNc4-0000000ElqJ-38Si; Mon, 11 May 2026 12:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: 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 12:11:47 +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> <72b480830dee1489bc28246d13102048635de5db.camel@sipsolutions.net> 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 15:40 +0530, Manish Dharanenthiran wrote: >=20 > Even-then, if there is a actual change, it goes to invoke the UPDATE.=20 > For the driver(s) which didn't implement the UPDATE yet, should we use= =20 > additional flags to notify the UPDATE support or returning a failure=20 > from driver should be suffice? I hope drivers would refuse unknown operations, so I think returning a failure is fine. We can quickly review the drivers that handle this to make sure, but I'd prefer not to have a feature flag. johannes