MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6Vs5y0DANeRbhU7J1z45uxENhcKDG+6b84XPxOh_f_KPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1399798250-20987-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
 <1399798250-20987-3-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
 <CAB=NE6XOm1EK5CMc8N1xfdKeXcfxRuyCZQtUXQGC3wyGXudAEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+XVXfeEWB5NasJnEGXrm0aXsdhz7AZR2Az_Azv3rBbnrvatcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB=NE6U=YaomArGA4VKCOv974AREw3eiTKM9U-fnjvidCDJ90g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+XVXfcJ4H32D6ZABZ9tSC2JO0Dv3c3uuHkEC-m0P4q0JJcdgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB=NE6UtCkxvQ=4ZnwnsEQY6kMdx-x+-YUgu636z0OTbOiNPcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+XVXfcvXEi0o-UGNu1T95+rEfpQoVZPf9oVGL3AiqgGiu-LEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAB=NE6Vs5y0DANeRbhU7J1z45uxENhcKDG+6b84XPxOh_f_KPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:24:59 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+XVXffnZnaiTmW-CWNEjHxrUOhyHBJU8pyoBY21OQTQ=o1QgQ@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20140611_072519_781502_2AD9028C)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Arik Nemtsov <arikx.nemtsov@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why won't old regdb rules work? The NL80211_RRF_NO_160MHZ for instance
>>>> is not used anywhere in old or new regdbs.
>>>> So all the new code in reg_get_max_bandwidth is ignored in current or
>>>> older crda/regdb flows.
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> It will also be ignored on newer kernels using old wireless-regdb.
>>
>> Is that a problem?
>
> I would have not brought it up otherwise.
>
>> Note that the new flags don't permit more things, but only narrow down
>> the range. So if VHT80 was blocked due to the range, it will still be
>> blocked.
>> Don't really see a reason to use them in newer regdbs either. Like you
>> said - range only is more scalable.
>
> You can keep all those bells and whistles provided you respect old
> userspace and old behavior first.

I guess I'm waiting for some direction on what need to be changed.
AFAICT, these flags don't hurt old userspace and/or new kernels using
an old wireless-regdb.
Can you propose a scenario where the new flags harm something older?

Thanks,
Arik