Message-ID: <1508358869.2674.55.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20171018_223449_539233_592E9BDE)
Subject: Re: Setting single rate in ath10k broken by "reject/clear user rate
 mask if not usable"
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>,
        Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>, kirtika@google.com
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:34:29 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8c2e0e98-f3f4-6e0c-1bf0-43dfa6e97275@rempel-privat.de> (sfid-20171018_195626_878094_461B764D)
References: <13895fa0-3685-dd2b-583d-2d6469d23cfe@candelatech.com>
         <1507708948.1998.15.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <2c293255-aa79-75a0-1c28-994f864cddf4@candelatech.com>
         <1508312033.2674.9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <2ad42671-59c4-80ed-4bca-f874eb53d653@candelatech.com>
         <8c2e0e98-f3f4-6e0c-1bf0-43dfa6e97275@rempel-privat.de>
         (sfid-20171018_195626_878094_461B764D)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 19:56 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> 
> > People trying to do regulatory testing want this feature, and other people
> > that are not me also like to test with specific rates.  Still a 
> > small-ish set of people, but bigger than just me at least.
> 
> Till now i was interviewing different people who was asking for this for 
> ath9k-htc. So I would say we have:
> - academical researchers
> - testers
> - R&D
> - exploit and penetration testers
> - HAM
> - just hackers
> 
> As for me, it sounds a s lot.

Making (literally) millions of devices in the field hit a WARN_ON() is
not really acceptable either though.

You can argue that this introduced a regression, but putting the old
behaviour back would equally be a regression, for more systems by a few
orders of magnitude.

In any case, I've already suggested a way to fix this, but you've both
completely ignored that part of my email. All I've been reading is that
you're demanding that I fix this, and arguments about how much people
are allowed to shoot themselves in the foot, none of which is very
constructive.

I might even fix it myself eventually, if only to appease the people
who say we have a zero tolerance no regressions rule, but it's not
exactly the most important thing I'm doing right now (also, I'll be
going on vacation for a few days, and you can probably implement my
suggestion in that time, and then I can review it when I get back on
Monday.)

Let's just say that I think we're discussing the wrong thing here - we
ought to be discussing how it can be fixed, and perhaps you can even be
constructive in suggesting (and testing, which I can't really do)
changes.

johannes