On 5/22/2025 4:53 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < scan_req->n_channels; i++) {
>>>> + chan = scan_req->channels[i];
>>>> + chan_radio_idx = cfg80211_get_radio_idx_by_chan(wiphy, chan);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Skip channels with an invalid radio index and continue
>>>> + * checking. If any channel in the scan request matches the
>>>> + * given radio index, return true.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (chan_radio_idx < 0)
>>>> + continue;
>>> This seems ... wrong? If there's a channel in the scan request that
>>> didn't map to _any_ radio then how are we even scanning there? And the
>>> comment seems even stranger, why would we _want_ to ignore it (which it
>>> conveniently doesn't answer)?
>>>
>> It seems, (chan_radio_idx < 0) should never be true because the chan is
>> taken from the valid scan request. I should remove this check in next version?
> I'm not sure, why did you add it? Maybe it should be a WARN_ON and abort
> the whole function? It just doesn't seem right to _ignore_.
I initially added the check as a precautionary measure.
In the next version, I’ll replace it with a WARN_ON() to flag the unexpected
condition. As a conservative approach, will return true in that case, assuming
the scan request might use the specified radio_idx to safely abort the function.
