> > Yes but you have to iterate all the stations and check they belong to
> > the interface and all that I think?
> >
> Maybe not need.
> if NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION and NON-WLAN_STA_TDLS_PEER, it has only 1
> station for the ieee80211_vif
> by my understand.
Well, yes, but there's no counter.
On 2020-11-13 17:10, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 17:09 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
On 2020-11-13 16:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:51 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
>
> > yes.
> > It can add check with supp_rates[band] of ieee80211_sta for
> > NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION type.
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 17:09 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> On 2020-11-13 16:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:51 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> >
> > > yes.
> > > It can add check with supp_rates[band] of ieee80211_sta for
> > > NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION type.
> > > for others, check with
On 2020-11-13 16:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:51 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
yes.
It can add check with supp_rates[band] of ieee80211_sta for
NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION type.
for others, check with sdata->vif.bss_conf.basic_rates
Right.
Though, might need to check that only if
On 2020-11-13 16:35, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:35 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> I guess if we really want to redefine the user rate mask to not apply
> to
> control frames, then we can relax this?
>
Yes, for AP mode, it is hard to calculate the usable rates over all
stations.
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:51 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> yes.
> It can add check with supp_rates[band] of ieee80211_sta for
> NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION type.
> for others, check with sdata->vif.bss_conf.basic_rates
Right.
Though, might need to check that only if there's no TDLS station or
something?
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:35 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
>
> > I guess if we really want to redefine the user rate mask to not apply
> > to
> > control frames, then we can relax this?
> >
> Yes, for AP mode, it is hard to calculate the usable rates over all
> stations.
> But for STATION mode, it can
On 2020-11-13 16:16, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:14 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
On 2020-11-13 15:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 10:08 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> > > Which was the intent of this change, wasn't it?
>
> Indeed. Permitting this leads to warnings later.
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:14 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> On 2020-11-13 15:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 10:08 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> > > > Which was the intent of this change, wasn't it?
> >
> > Indeed. Permitting this leads to warnings later.
> >
> > > We need to set the tx
On 2020-11-13 15:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 10:08 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> Which was the intent of this change, wasn't it?
Indeed. Permitting this leads to warnings later.
We need to set the tx rate to fixed at a single rate, e.g.,
54M/48M/36M... for a test case.
I do
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 10:08 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
>
> > Which was the intent of this change, wasn't it?
Indeed. Permitting this leads to warnings later.
> We need to set the tx rate to fixed at a single rate, e.g.,
> 54M/48M/36M... for a test case.
> I do not want a clear error message, I
On 2020-11-12 20:49, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
On 11/12/2020 11:55 AM, Wen Gong wrote:
On 2017-03-08 21:20, Johannes Berg wrote:
From: Johannes Berg
[...]
@@ -2685,6 +2686,21 @@ static int ieee80211_set_bitrate_mask(struct
wiphy *wiphy,
return ret;
}
+ /*
+ * If
On 11/12/2020 11:55 AM, Wen Gong wrote:
On 2017-03-08 21:20, Johannes Berg wrote:
From: Johannes Berg
[...]
@@ -2685,6 +2686,21 @@ static int ieee80211_set_bitrate_mask(struct
wiphy *wiphy,
return ret;
}
+ /*
+ * If active validate the setting and reject it if it
On 2017-03-08 21:20, Johannes Berg wrote:
From: Johannes Berg
If the user rate mask results in no (basic) rates being usable,
clear it. Also, if we're already operating when it's set, reject
it instead.
Technically, selecting basic rates as the criterion is a bit too
restrictive, but
14 matches
Mail list logo
