Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5268-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <cd8f0071-1033-46b8-b7d7-3140079e8a5a@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:27:20 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: validate link status before deciding on
 off channel Tx
Content-Language: en-US
From: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
CC: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, Sriram R <quic_srirrama@quicinc.com>
References: <20240312154620.242773-1-quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
 <2c8338a29d3c42ebbf1fd5efd348c14471fa5004.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <bc2422eb-efae-423e-b60a-2aa0a3ea94fb@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc2422eb-efae-423e-b60a-2aa0a3ea94fb@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/26/24 09:58, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
>> Can you fix
>> that too? And if you fix that ... yeah we probably still should have
>> this patch but ... _without_ this:
>>
> 
> Sure let me try to fix that as well. So here's what Im planning -
> 1. Separate the ether_addr changes into a separate independent patch.
> 2. Patch series to fix the active flag handling at link level.

Upon checking further, I see -

If we fix the setting of the flag only when first link comes up and 
reset it only when last link is removed, then probably there is no need 
to add separate handler - ieee80211_is_link_bss_active() to check if 
any one link is active or not.

FWIW, the purpose of the new function introduced is to check if at least 
one of the link is active. And now if the flag is set, this ultimately 
means that one link is at least active. So we do not need to go and 
check in each link again right?