> + * @max_sched_scan_reqs: maximum number of scheduled scan requests
> that
> + * the device can run concurrently.
Perhaps we should get rid of WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SCAN and just
set this to 1 for such devices? Otherwise we have two different
requirements, and we need to track that 0 is an invalid value here if
WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SCAN is set, or something like that?
> + * @NL80211_ATTR_SCHED_SCAN_MAX_REQS: indicates maximum number of
> scheduled
> + * scan request that may be active for the device (u8).
I'd make that a u32 - not that I believe we'll ever want to change this
in the future, but there's simply no value in making it a u8 since it
uses the same amount of space in a netlink message.
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &rdev-
> >sched_scan_req_list, list) {
> + cfg80211_stop_sched_scan_req(rdev, pos, false);
> + }
nit: don't really need braces here.
> + if ((wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SCAN) &&
> + !wiphy->max_sched_scan_reqs)
> + wiphy->max_sched_scan_reqs = 1;
Yeah, this. Why bother?
(should even be simple to come up with an spatch to change all the
drivers, but there are only five anyway)
> + nla_put_u8(msg,
> NL80211_ATTR_SCHED_SCAN_MAX_REQS,
> + rdev->wiphy.max_sched_scan_reqs) ||
> nla_put_u8(msg,
> NL80211_ATTR_MAX_NUM_SCHED_SCAN_SSIDS,
> rdev->wiphy.max_sched_scan_ssids) ||
This might break older userspace - you'll have to put it in a later
portion of the code.
I'm also a bit surprised the attributes aren't actually optional for
when sched scan isn't supported, I'd make the new one optional and I
guess we can fix the others later too, if desired.
> + bool want_multi;
That's bool
> + want_multi = !!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SCHED_SCAN_MULTI];
so you don't really need the !! as it's implied by the rules for bool
:)
> + /* leave request id zero for legacy request
> + * or if driver does not support multi-scheduled scan
> + */
> + if (want_multi && rdev->wiphy.max_sched_scan_reqs > 1) {
Why do the >1 check here? It probably doesn't really make a difference
since only one can be running at a time, but it might be nicer - at
least for debug in userspace - to have a real value for all multi
scans?
> + while (!sched_scan_req->reqid)
Pretty sure we won't run over the u64 ... but I guess it doesn't matter
much :)
I don't see you sending the reqid/cookie back to userspace here though,
that's missing?
> static int nl80211_stop_sched_scan(struct sk_buff *skb,
> struct genl_info *info)
> {
> + struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request *req;
> struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = info->user_ptr[0];
> + u64 cookie;
>
> if (!(rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SCAN) ||
> !rdev->ops->sched_scan_stop)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - return __cfg80211_stop_sched_scan(rdev, false);
> + if (info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_COOKIE]) {
> + cookie = nla_get_u64(info-
> >attrs[NL80211_ATTR_COOKIE]);
> + return __cfg80211_stop_sched_scan(rdev, cookie,
> false);
> + } else {
> + req = list_first_or_null_rcu(&rdev-
> >sched_scan_req_list,
> + struct
> cfg80211_sched_scan_request,
> + list);
> + if (!req || req->reqid ||
> + (req->owner_nlportid &&
> + req->owner_nlportid != info->snd_portid))
> + return -ENOENT;
Shouldn't this also check that it's non-multi?
> +void cfg80211_add_sched_scan_req(struct cfg80211_registered_device
> *rdev,
> + struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request
> *req)
> +{
> + list_add_rcu(&req->list, &rdev->sched_scan_req_list);
> +}
> +
> +static void cfg80211_del_sched_scan_req(struct
> cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
> + struct
> cfg80211_sched_scan_request *req)
> +{
> + list_del_rcu(&req->list);
> + kfree_rcu(req, rcu_head);
> +}
Some locking assertions in these would be good, I think.
> +static struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request *
> +cfg80211_find_sched_scan_req(struct cfg80211_registered_device
> *rdev, u64 reqid)
> +{
> + struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request *pos;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(pos, &rdev->sched_scan_req_list, list) {
> + if (pos->reqid == reqid)
> + return pos;
> + }
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +}
Here too, I guess, since you don't actually use RCU.
johannes
