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: <5d82fa60fa8170c6a41e87650785ba008da11826.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi warnings in 5.5-rc1
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
        Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc:     "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:19:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87d0cugbe5.fsf@toke.dk>
References: <ceb74ea2-6a1b-4cef-8749-db21a2ee4311@kernel.dk>
         <d4a48cbdc4b0db7b07b8776a1ee70b140e8a9bbf.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <87o8wfeyx5.fsf@toke.dk>
         <e65574ac1bb414c9feb3d51e5cbd643c2907b221.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <87d0cugbe5.fsf@toke.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 15:55 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 15:09 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > > If we're doing this on a per-driver basis, let's make it a proper
> > > NL80211_EXT_FEATURE and expose it to userspace; that way users can at
> > > least discover if it's supported on their device. I can send a patch
> > > adding that...
> > 
> > Sure. Just didn't get to that yet, but if you want to send a patch
> > that's very welcome. I have to run out now, will be back in the evening
> > at most.
> 
> Patch here (for those not following linux-wireless):
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=215107

Thanks!

Maybe I should roll that into a single patch so it's actually easier to
apply as a bugfix while keeping ath10k on AQL for 5.5, otherwise it
could be argued that the ath10k patch is a feature for -next ...

> > > Maybe we should untangle this from airtime_flags completely, since if we
> > > just use the flags people could conceivably end up disabling it by
> > > mistake, couldn't they?
> > 
> > Yes, that sounds like a good plan, now I was wondering why it's there
> > anyway.
> 
> Convenience, I think :)

:)

johannes