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 8D49B333451; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 11:30:12 +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=1771327813; cv=none; b=JW8jN3ptg9rYG6H/r8b868iMb+ct+7J9hYVGXlulapDgkBUu4bAzIGvxeXwbbyKefP95RwzMTGoEeTnzjTyNwaV9H4rpmfCGcsuWnLzkK7bxqu/Ed2+7llNNTdlMFfzmqGLZhIXJ425pzxEDaeey+rg/fC1TwwZ6trY8NEQzC0A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771327813; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s5gTHzJS4ZkvAIZo/pnV2eSzjkSXP7QJmPwkLQ7dlNU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=WcOmN8Nebj5MvScy1S8mgTyEhF2rMBvGIhhpOAnu8R326mmbQdsRNB9p8UxURK5SNOavTsKps/bT6E4ohYVBwcXHfxvV/Zmhhvnv0DvOXeiCvtWCu/FF0cyTFhfJ6LLUNCZiXe5Abd+AlylMSvmpCZ4mb/YhJNUbl1fhmNRzDK4= 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=e2opKpaw; 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="e2opKpaw" 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=LWQZN1sc3uNl027SKJpZP5bHdGEpLmDtsOVKdhh9rd4=; t=1771327812; x=1772537412; b=e2opKpawfG8hBWtASaQyPKjGpB83pQ08t39LrFVFpKzX4dh 01TrTCfSu/+Eab9x1ekmo2bZaOaQDbW+NKI4oYNCrR/GSabtbXBgtIrmfklIFHJ0mELM4BvFeb7mm y/mTFKelbIuTSm/Ny9rdttVmnH8+nqfevfm563ZC34jLly17/Vgp2VYtmeMxO2YxrgWamQI/BESZs QDodRP8auLf4I52moTarj12Ji1Y3lzVxfcxA9vkge4srn0WkQ2QHHAhsA4BrboqxO7QPEqacYHWqi l+wwHWQ+7chg1zS7aSYqRwi0cV7RySprVnOLr8ADEx3sHfqPhJvIpH24XQagmeNQ==; 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 1vsJHN-0000000BMWU-3A6u; Tue, 17 Feb 2026 12:30:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless] wifi: mac80211: Fix ADDBA update when HW supports reordering From: Johannes Berg To: Remi Pommarel Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 12:30:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5806bab7e46506d3c300ab4eb66989d42936aeb0.1771323902.git.repk@triplefau.lt> References: <5806bab7e46506d3c300ab4eb66989d42936aeb0.1771323902.git.repk@triplefau.lt> 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 Tue, 2026-02-17 at 11:36 +0100, Remi Pommarel wrote: > Commit f89e07d4cf26 ("mac80211: agg-rx: refuse ADDBA Request with timeout > update") added a check to fail when ADDBA update would change the > timeout param. >=20 > This param is kept in tid_ampdu_rx context which is only allocated on HW > that do not set SUPPORTS_REORDERING_BUFFER. Because the timeout check > was done regardless of this param, ADDBA update always failed on those > HW. Seems like a legit problem, but > Fix this by only checking tid_ampdu_rx->timeout only when > SUPPORTS_REORDERING_BUFFER is not set. that doesn't seem right? Especially the way you implemented it, it won't even respond at all when it's an update and SUPPORTS_REORDERING_BUFFER is set. Seems we perhaps just need to store the timeout elsewhere? > @@ -374,14 +383,6 @@ void __ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session(struct sta_info= *sta, > goto end; > } > =20 > - ht_dbg_ratelimited(sta->sdata, > - "unexpected AddBA Req from %pM on tid %u\n", > - sta->sta.addr, tid); > - > - /* delete existing Rx BA session on the same tid */ > - __ieee80211_stop_rx_ba_session(sta, tid, WLAN_BACK_RECIPIENT, > - WLAN_STATUS_UNSPECIFIED_QOS, > - false); > } Also, nit, but this leaves a blank line at the end of the block. johannes