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;
Message-ID: <c95e9e9f5539150459f97f811b784a6e9af163cf.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 0/6] cfg80211/mac80211: Add support for TID specific
 configuration
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Sergey Matyukevich <sergey.matyukevich.os@quantenna.com>
Cc:     Tamizh chelvam <tamizhr@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:07:34 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20191108160121.tbatmqwx64aoqqai@bars>
References: <1572957714-16085-1-git-send-email-tamizhr@codeaurora.org>
         <20191108093207.uv4j44xpm2qvtsv5@bars>
         <84ca3a8b61757360ab9898afcdd3f2f63c770f86.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20191108120504.ptl25hacxcftb7tw@bars>
         <1c553c457024b295c7d0a6b118c3848eec28bcbd.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <20191108160121.tbatmqwx64aoqqai@bars>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 16:01 +0000, Sergey Matyukevich wrote:

> > I think we still need NL80211_TID_CONFIG_ATTR_OVERRIDE in some way
> > (maybe only as a flag attribute), since you could have
> > 
> >  * change all stations (some subset of TIDs) *including* already
> >    configured stations
> >  * or *excluding* already configured stations
> 
> Hmmm... Logic is straightforwad without this flag:
> - settings are applied to bitmasked TIDs of a single peer if address is specifed
> - settings are applied to bitmasked TIDs of all the peers if no address is specified

Sure, this is obvious, but what exactly does "all the peers" mean?

Say I do

set_tid_config(tids=0x1, peer=02:11:22:33:44:55, noack=yes)
set_tid_config(tids=0x1, peer=NULL, noack=no)

Does that reset peer 02:11:22:33:44:55, or not? This is not documented
right now, and one could argue both ways - the override for that
particular peer should stick, or should be removed. Which one is it?

> It looks like you want to infer too much from a single flag. Why keep this logic in
> cfg80211/mac80211/driver ?

I just want to disambiguate what "all the peers" means. Not sure what
you mean by keeping the logic?

johannes