Message-ID: <f6b699b051cd1625da57b224e7cd1a8ac6916e72.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: question: crda timeout in cfg80211
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Sergey Matyukevich <sergey.matyukevich.os@quantenna.com>
Cc:     "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Igor Mitsyanko <igor.mitsyanko.os@quantenna.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:40:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190409083551.g27qvcxqhfm2x4uq@bars>
References: <20190326124209.j6tdk5cz47kc6mdj@bars>
         <07e019232f1720ce70d3353ce73cd32a23e5ed2f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20190409083551.g27qvcxqhfm2x4uq@bars>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 08:35 +0000, Sergey Matyukevich wrote:

> Indeed, it is PI. I should have known. But instead I spent some time
> digging through 802.11 specs :)

Oops :)
 
> Well, as I mentioned in my question, regulatory update/reset operations
> shall be completed in ~pi seconds for _all_ the wireless cards in the
> system. In our case, regulatory reset operation may be fairly costly.
> As a result, we end up with recurring reset timeout, when more than one
> qtn card is installed in a single pcie host. One option for us is to
> optimize regulatory reset operations in firmware.
> 
> But what do you think about converting crda_timeout into a per-wiphy
> timeout in the case when all wiphy-s are being processed, e.g.
> in update_all_wiphy_regulatory.

Maybe we should parallelize it? But I don't know how easy that would be.

I'm a little worried just making it longer will cause users to really be
wondering what's going on?

johannes