Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-5491-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:49:03 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>,
 ath12k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Vasanthakumar
 Thiagarajan  <quic_vthiagar@quicinc.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] wifi: nl80211: send underlying multi-hardware
 channel capabilities to user space
Message-ID: <20240328114903.1d0c8af9@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <9d0f309da45ae657cd2ce0bc11a93d66e856ef64.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20240328072916.1164195-1-quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>
	<20240328072916.1164195-3-quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>
	<6d92d0ba4a8764cd91cc20c4bd35613bcc41dfcd.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	<9d5c2f9f-19b5-af4d-8018-1eb97fac10d6@quicinc.com>
	<9d0f309da45ae657cd2ce0bc11a93d66e856ef64.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:01:55 +0100 Johannes Berg wrote:
> If we do that, including NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_IDX for illustrative
> purposes though I think it should be removed, we'd end up with:
> 
> NL80211_ATTR_MULTI_HW
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_IDX: 0
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_FREQ: 2412
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_FREQ: 2417
>  ...
> NL80211_ATTR_MULTI_HW
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_IDX: 1
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_FREQ: 5180
>  - NL80211_MULTI_HW_ATTR_FREQ: 5200
>  ...
> 
> which _is_ a lot more compact, and removes all the uninteresting mid-
> level indexing.
> 
> So in that sense, I prefer that, but I'm truly not sure how the (hand-
> written) userspace code would deal with that.

I think the best way today would be two walks:

	for_each_attr() {
		switch (type):
		case THE_A_ARRAY_1:
			cnt1++;
			break;
		case THE_A_ARRAY_2:
			cnt2++;
			break;
	}

	if (cnt1)
		array_1 = calloc();
	cnt1 = 0; /* we'll use it as index in second loop */
	if (cnt2)
		array_2 = calloc();
	cnt2 = 0;

	for_each_attr() {
		/* [ normal parsing, populating array_1[cnt1++] etc. ] */
	}

Compared to "indexed array" the only practical difference I think is
the fact that all attrs are walked. I think you have to count them
either way before parsing.

I was wondering at some point whether we should require that all
multi-attr attributes are grouped together. Or add an explicit "count"
attribute. But couldn't convince myself that such extra rules will
pay off sufficiently with perf and/or ease of use...