Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5271-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <5576f8160e7d4b707fe2dc3681721cb49dfeec5d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: validate link status before deciding on
 off channel Tx
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Sriram R <quic_srirrama@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:42:34 +0100
In-Reply-To: <cd8f0071-1033-46b8-b7d7-3140079e8a5a@quicinc.com>
References: <20240312154620.242773-1-quic_adisi@quicinc.com>
	 <2c8338a29d3c42ebbf1fd5efd348c14471fa5004.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <bc2422eb-efae-423e-b60a-2aa0a3ea94fb@quicinc.com>
	 <cd8f0071-1033-46b8-b7d7-3140079e8a5a@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 11:27 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
> 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:
> > >=20
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> Upon checking further, I see -
>=20
> If we fix the setting of the flag only when first link comes up and=20
> reset it only when last link is removed, then probably there is no need=
=20
> to add separate handler - ieee80211_is_link_bss_active() to check if=20
> any one link is active or not.
>=20
> FWIW, the purpose of the new function introduced is to check if at least=
=20
> one of the link is active. And now if the flag is set, this ultimately=
=20
> means that one link is at least active. So we do not need to go and=20
> check in each link again right?
>=20
Yes, which is why I even noticed the whole mess with 'active'.

johannes