Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH wireless-next v9 03/10] wifi: cfg80211: extend to embed link level statistics in NL message

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/22/2025 3:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 15:27 +0530, Sarika Sharma wrote:

Probably not, though maybe we do want the link addresses in the station
delete message to userspace?

Then may be reporting station data will work here?( already happening)
As overall station is getting removed, not just any of links.

If really a use case then can allocate memory for link_sinfo as well
during the station delete?

I don't know if it's needed, we can always add it later if so?

And maybe we'll rework the allocation anyway so it's on-demand.

Sure.



But the warning was just an inconsistency issue - why should users set
the valid bits for a link but then not have any link data? That seems
wrong?

It's not exactly incorrect, since there's a scenario where memory isn't
allocated for link_station (such as during station deletion).
Perhaps we could add a comment to clarify this behavior?

Then either way, if really link_sinfo required to be reported(for link
address), then need to allocate memory during station delete for links.

or if need to add WARN_ON_ONCE(), can reset valid_links during station
delete?

I guess I disagree and still think it is incorrect, it means something
(mac80211?) set up the valid links bitmap but wasn't able to fill in the
data. Why would that make sense?

True it shouldn't, I agree.
May be then I can set up the valid links bitmap from mac80211, only if memory is getting allocated from cfg80211 for link_sinfo?


OK, maybe there's a conceptual difference here. I'm reading the
"valid_links" as "for this specific statistics structure, these are the
valid links".

If you read it as "for this station, these are the valid links" then it
makes some sense to have the valid links filled, but no statistics.

But I'd argue that latter interpretation doesn't make much sense since
to userspace they look exactly the same. If we had say the link address
outside and then the link address would be there even in the absence of
statistics, it'd make more sense, but that's not how it works?

Yes, currently the link address is part of the link_sinfo structure.
When you say "outside," are you referring to placing it directly in the sinfo structure?


johannes





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux