| Message ID | 1484820088-24448-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Johannes Berg |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: > For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number of > matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit > for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, is > used for the net-detect case as well. > > Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> > --- What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P Looks good. Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> -- Luca.
On 19-1-2017 13:00, Luca Coelho wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number of >> matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit >> for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, is >> used for the net-detect case as well. >> >> Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> >> --- > > What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P Actually I have, but your comment mentioned they do not have to be the same. brcmfmac actually did not set max_nd_match_sets so I was surprised it worked. That said this patch will result in regression in brcmfmac :-p Not sure about other drivers supporting net-detect. Regards, Arend > Looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> > > -- > Luca. >
On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 14:08 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > On 19-1-2017 13:00, Luca Coelho wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number > > > of > > > matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit > > > for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, > > > is > > > used for the net-detect case as well. > > > > > > Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> > > > --- > > > > What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P > > Actually I have, but your comment mentioned they do not have to be > the > same. brcmfmac actually did not set max_nd_match_sets so I was > surprised > it worked. That said this patch will result in regression in brcmfmac > :-p Not sure about other drivers supporting net-detect. So do you want to submit a patch to brcmfmac first, and then I'll apply this later? I can apply it and break it, but now that we already know ...? johannes
On 24-1-2017 9:57, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 14:08 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> >> On 19-1-2017 13:00, Luca Coelho wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>> For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number >>>> of >>>> matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit >>>> for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, >>>> is >>>> used for the net-detect case as well. >>>> >>>> Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> >>>> --- >>> >>> What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P >> >> Actually I have, but your comment mentioned they do not have to be >> the >> same. brcmfmac actually did not set max_nd_match_sets so I was >> surprised >> it worked. That said this patch will result in regression in brcmfmac >> :-p Not sure about other drivers supporting net-detect. > > So do you want to submit a patch to brcmfmac first, and then I'll apply > this later? I can apply it and break it, but now that we already know > ...? I have a brcmfmac patch in the queue. I will look at the other scheduled scan supporting drivers. Regards, Arend
On 24-1-2017 12:28, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 24-1-2017 9:57, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 14:08 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> >>> On 19-1-2017 13:00, Luca Coelho wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 10:01 +0000, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>>> For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number >>>>> of >>>>> matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit >>>>> for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, >>>>> is >>>>> used for the net-detect case as well. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> What?! You don't have the same number of matchsets for both? :P >>> >>> Actually I have, but your comment mentioned they do not have to be >>> the >>> same. brcmfmac actually did not set max_nd_match_sets so I was >>> surprised >>> it worked. That said this patch will result in regression in brcmfmac >>> :-p Not sure about other drivers supporting net-detect. >> >> So do you want to submit a patch to brcmfmac first, and then I'll apply >> this later? I can apply it and break it, but now that we already know >> ...? > > I have a brcmfmac patch in the queue. I will look at the other scheduled > scan supporting drivers. Hi Johannes, I actually have two dependent brcmfmac patches. Do you expect conflict if Kalle takes all? Regards, Arend
> I actually have two dependent brcmfmac patches. Do you expect > conflict if Kalle takes all? Not really, if that's somehow easier we can do that. johannes
On 27-1-2017 12:27, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> I actually have two dependent brcmfmac patches. Do you expect >> conflict if Kalle takes all? > > Not really, if that's somehow easier we can do that. Will do. I checked the other drivers. All those supporting wowl netdetect did provide max_nd_matchsets except for brcmfmac. Regards, Arend
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c index b4e7bdd..df0675d 100644 --- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c +++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c @@ -6852,7 +6852,7 @@ static int nl80211_abort_scan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) static struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request * nl80211_parse_sched_scan(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev *wdev, - struct nlattr **attrs) + struct nlattr **attrs, int max_match_sets) { struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request *request; struct nlattr *attr; @@ -6917,7 +6917,7 @@ static int nl80211_abort_scan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) if (!n_match_sets && default_match_rssi != NL80211_SCAN_RSSI_THOLD_OFF) n_match_sets = 1; - if (n_match_sets > wiphy->max_match_sets) + if (n_match_sets > max_match_sets) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); if (attrs[NL80211_ATTR_IE]) @@ -7217,7 +7217,8 @@ static int nl80211_start_sched_scan(struct sk_buff *skb, return -EINPROGRESS; sched_scan_req = nl80211_parse_sched_scan(&rdev->wiphy, wdev, - info->attrs); + info->attrs, + rdev->wiphy.max_match_sets); err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(sched_scan_req); if (err) @@ -10030,7 +10031,8 @@ static int nl80211_parse_wowlan_nd(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev, if (err) goto out; - trig->nd_config = nl80211_parse_sched_scan(&rdev->wiphy, NULL, tb); + trig->nd_config = nl80211_parse_sched_scan(&rdev->wiphy, NULL, tb, + wowlan->max_nd_match_sets); err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(trig->nd_config); if (err) trig->nd_config = NULL;
For wowlan netdetect a separate limit is defined for the number of matchsets. Currently, this limit is ignored and the regular limit for scheduled scan matchsets, ie. struct wiphy::max_match_sets, is used for the net-detect case as well. Cc: Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> --- net/wireless/nl80211.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)