Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-64-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <782a4f7ac91dcb0e1c564e285051c63e2a95d71f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] wifi: cfg80211: Schedule regulatory check on BSS
 STA channel change
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: gregory.greenman@intel.com
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Andrei Otcheretianski
	 <andrei.otcheretianski@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 20:13:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20231113112844.15d7a0ee3fda.I1879d259d8d756159c8060f61f4bce172e6d323e@changeid>
References: <20231113093505.456824-1-gregory.greenman@intel.com>
	 <20231113112844.15d7a0ee3fda.I1879d259d8d756159c8060f61f4bce172e6d323e@changeid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Mon, 2023-11-13 at 11:35 +0200, gregory.greenman@intel.com wrote:
>=20
> @@ -9302,6 +9302,17 @@ bool cfg80211_valid_disable_subchannel_bitmap(u16 =
*bitmap,
>   * case disconnect instead.
>   * Also note that the wdev mutex must be held.
>   */
> +
>  void cfg80211_links_removed(struct net_device *dev, u16 link_mask);

What happened there?
=20
> +/**
> + * cfg80211_schedule_channels_check - schedule regulatory check if neede=
d
> + * @netdev: the device to check
> + *
> + * In case the device supports NO_IR or DFS relaxations, schedule regula=
tory
> + * channels check, as previous concurrent operation conditions may not
> + * hold anymore.
> + */

...

> +void cfg80211_schedule_channels_check(struct net_device *netdev)
> +{
> +	struct wireless_dev *wdev =3D netdev->ieee80211_ptr;
> +	struct wiphy *wiphy =3D wdev->wiphy;
> +
> +	/* Schedule channels check if NO_IR or DFS relaxations are supported */
> +	if (wdev->iftype =3D=3D NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION &&
> +	    (wiphy_ext_feature_isset(wiphy,
> +				     NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_DFS_CONCURRENT) ||
> +	    (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFG80211_REG_RELAX_NO_IR) &&
> +	     wiphy->regulatory_flags & REGULATORY_ENABLE_RELAX_NO_IR)))
> +		reg_check_channels();
> +}

That ... doesn't even use the netdev pointer, apart from going to the
wiphy? Why not have a wiphy argument instead?

johannes