Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp6133181yba; Tue, 14 May 2019 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlSJGu6pU0A7lzR4NEnYoy+Ny1nbGjyWQAu1981OffS7G9Pv6NVaQ+t0MBmoPp6+y4UVK8 X-Received: by 2002:a62:4c5:: with SMTP id 188mr40127064pfe.29.1557825167036; Tue, 14 May 2019 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557825167; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=kvHM2EVFxXHGJwyQlMqT9QzgxlkQUB+sJ3ZbTnpzDP+FF89THYktcd2W764MTU27VV rp9HmtyIEj/32vaiLSuB+w0KQESAtjHwu5kdPmGYsNX7OvFyprswxKCjgsluARFCUjug IeUvWs30+GOtRFDGYu3AzAJ4W618v9uLDrXRqv2j7WiIXRUcrTGSGbskZQxnITbCVgQ0 tm/E0lcY97FMYBd4fBD/ffpxwdMNRkpJG0bx4eIL9szAoVzdBSCTW9Xq8b+NgjXFWsKa 5z6twZO/BzlDDSYIrPjy2ShrSuMU5jpJRwsQuPsCBMOlLk9QGwfXuc2BklfBG+aJN27d 7Wbg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id; bh=1iKw6yY5U21nrwaVwoOdkDL976DCsCcqxBQuYuyJ5C0=; b=TTMmNoY89yrSpW/UHpCfGy6wF1CPMNqq32rsieVod6E9R6D2MNkWBD5viS8OYnC84U xbjQKQHIr+BkndwyZfPvz6MEjYjeVbM2yx70nPJfD3g5/zPWLlM5jtTzsQDXgjLUiVSG 3ZRKogG1ovE2233oTumT5mQqDu7I1aHt7nLE+1g4wCte9RonlP6Z1E9OraOw0HYUcrEq ZUKmAeOPfSuyb9in/d6CcWna1QDkwHSmFj53Nne+2SoEjOeeyw3b52C/o7ndpTQT36DK vqh5u4BCcRh2t5xxxGFCRAGQI5G+93A9fXi0qymC5WZ0rQVLOVDrbKx+bEPoBYPyWIsK UsJA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x123si22997556pfx.157.2019.05.14.02.12.32; Tue, 14 May 2019 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726084AbfENJMN (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 14 May 2019 05:12:13 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:40626 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725916AbfENJMN (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 May 2019 05:12:13 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTTn-0007VU-CC; Tue, 14 May 2019 11:12:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: remove warning message From: Johannes Berg To: Yibo Zhao Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Zhi Chen Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:12:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1557824507-17668-1-git-send-email-yiboz@codeaurora.org> (sfid-20190514_110314_752671_7E53E9A2) <7c92f5cf51eaec1d5449698d90f5b6c5ca6c2bea.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 17:10 +0800, Yibo Zhao wrote: > On 2019-05-14 17:05, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 17:01 +0800, Yibo Zhao wrote: > > > In multiple SSID cases, it takes time to prepare every AP interface > > > to be ready in initializing phase. If a sta already knows everything > > > it > > > needs to join one of the APs and sends authentication to the AP which > > > is not fully prepared at this point of time, AP's channel context > > > could be NULL. As a result, warning message occurs. > > > > > > > Err, what was the point in sending v2 without any changes? > > > > johannes > > Hi Johannes, > > I was planning to use WARN_ON_ONCE() in the first place to replace > WARN_ON() then after some discussion, we think removing it could be > better. So the first patch was based on my first version which is sent > incorrectly. Please check again. Oops, I didn't pay attention to the - code. I guess changing it to WARN_ON_ONCE() makes sense, but as per my earlier email I'm really not sure about removing it entirely, it doesn't seem like a valid scenario and we should take steps elsewhere to prevent it. johannes