> > > > On 27 November 2014 at 13:30, Emmanuel Grumbach > > <emmanuel.grumb...@intel.com> wrote: > > > When we want to calculate the minimal bandwidth needed for a channel > > > context, we need to take into account vifs that have reserved the > > > channel context. > > > I hit an issue with iwlwifi and channel switch as a client. > > > > > > We would allocate a virgin channel context and reserve it. > > > At that stage, the min_def was 20MHz. > > > Then we would use it after CSA, and start transmitting, but the > > > channel context was still 20MHz even if the GO was in 40MHz. This > > > made the firmware unhappy. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumb...@intel.com>
So we discussed it internally - and it seems that the other patch is better (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5396351/). Let's drop this one. > > > --- > > > net/mac80211/chan.c | 6 +++++- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/chan.c b/net/mac80211/chan.c index > > > 4c74e8d..769e0c5 100644 > > > --- a/net/mac80211/chan.c > > > +++ b/net/mac80211/chan.c > > > @@ -256,7 +256,8 @@ ieee80211_get_chanctx_max_required_bw(struct > > ieee80211_local *local, > > > if (!ieee80211_sdata_running(sdata)) > > > continue; > > > > > > - if (rcu_access_pointer(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf) != conf) > > > + if (rcu_access_pointer(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf) != conf && > > > + &sdata->reserved_chanctx->conf != conf) > > > continue; > > > > > > switch (vif->type) { @@ -271,6 +272,7 @@ > > > ieee80211_get_chanctx_max_required_bw(struct > > ieee80211_local *local, > > > case NL80211_IFTYPE_WDS: > > > case NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT: > > > width = vif->bss_conf.chandef.width; > > > + width = max(width, > > > + sdata->reserved_chandef.width); > > > > Not really sure why this is needed in this patch? > > > > Hmm... You are right - I think I got confused here :) I guess I need to verify > that removing this hunk still solves my bug. > In general though, what option would you prefer? > > Internally, we had different opinions here. > > > > > > break; > > > case NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED: > > > case NUM_NL80211_IFTYPES: > > > @@ -899,6 +901,8 @@ int ieee80211_vif_reserve_chanctx(struct > > ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, > > > sdata->reserved_radar_required = radar_required; > > > sdata->reserved_ready = false; > > > > > > + ieee80211_recalc_chanctx_min_def(local, new_ctx); > > > + > > > > Hmm.. Wouldn't it make sense to recalc this in > > ieee80211_vif_unreserve_ chanctx() as well? > > Probably - I need to add this. > > > > > > > Michał N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��*ޕ�,�{ay� ʇڙ�,j��f���h���z� �w��� ���j:+v���w�j�m��������zZ+�����ݢj"��!�i
