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 1CCDB14659B for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:48 +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=1730371671; cv=none; b=DRDO9kxuEugCGUbw498yWEffw7rIzoA82RVr66jKgzt40bcMmHmylm7QpnqCm0EDb9mbmiN0ib5Va8NcMcCg8hg5f6yewNwAtSBhdRhjxhmt4EZ9kczla6mniMG9LW4wDzrScIGZfLYd4v70kvYQB5vdIZXiU9F/tq4N8qK2jfc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730371671; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Dl8hdDnBmAY1nRSMxM8dTCsNcNJfOb9j7hsGPdHbtO4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=XK7cXF4ODvNje1+zN1aS2urPq4pTJNiEnqQ2gzEA6hjc6i9hJKQgDQooh11Df4bTehOo/J/QfvBHR8ib+tk/9syhbfmRBiC7K7Ym9aQKvk6lv7x6HZxfWgxcabWjxPs+j0LhQrwHxZqGYgyTZZhJF+Exah1QnWcrLyCGAOzZJm4= 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=OYBzVpyS; 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="OYBzVpyS" 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=Dl8hdDnBmAY1nRSMxM8dTCsNcNJfOb9j7hsGPdHbtO4=; t=1730371669; x=1731581269; b=OYBzVpySe8ARMN/oAkFMVMoWCsk8xgNNgpgZqHY+fUPUwnf GldJ+qWDxlGjObWybJMgkTs43ZqR77kfHK08r7kOOT0QJgWXO6PJJpkVgzdQGGcOpThmO6T9PH835 mQL6kb9CwDYFCWelgHp3IbeIgyfgJfQdok1scPjYP0swoDSptDHvGiosjbaD8IwYxc3C13LYHIh8Z vTFSpd3IbPY8NFDy6vfz3O3mkbQ6rx7BTzZLhJneyxz3DxPTFgHl+QuqtfJRXO243/GZ7/JNbeRon UmPztlyKrRq7cDof6Vhz88f3CvuCv2kZlYwtCqFU9+7yT9l1kWTG6wWMJ/8qGvcA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1t6SiH-0000000APAw-1SY6; Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:47:37 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: Correctly handle Medium Synchronization Delay From: Johannes Berg To: Benjamin Berg , Lingbo Kong , ath12k@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:47:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20241030025515.16004-1-quic_lingbok@quicinc.com> <3a74f2f1-fd9f-46a5-87c1-fdc0235a50e5@quicinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-2.fc40) 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 Thu, 2024-10-31 at 10:25 +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote: >=20 > Right, which does seem to imply that a non-NSTR AP can very well set a > Medium Delay Synchronization. Yes, we also pass it to the firmware in iwlwifi, so definitely. > > Regarding the statement =E2=80=9CCould it be that this is intended to b= e used by=20 > > NSTR APs only,=E2=80=9D I did not find any explicit indication in the s= pec that=20 > > the multi-link probe response carrying the medium sync delay subfield i= s=20 > > solely applicable to NSTR APs. > >=20 > > Additionally, do you have any suggestions on how to address this issue?= =F0=9F=99=82 >=20 > Not really. I don't grasp the intention of the specification here. But > if an AP may include the field in an ML Probe Response, then we > obviously cannot rely on the value to be consistent. >=20 > Seems to me that the option to remove the check is still the best way > forward right now. Agree, let's just remove it - Lingbo do you want to send a patch? We should probably compare "extended MLD capabilities and ops" though, haha. johannes