Message ID | 20221104174218.7817a3abaf39.Ib9eabc2ec5bf6b0244e4d973e93baaa3d8c91bd8@changeid (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | RFC |
Delegated to: | Johannes Berg |
Headers | show |
Series | [RFC,1/2] wifi: wireless: warn on most wireless extension usage | expand |
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes: > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > > These are new devices that will be introduced into the market s/new/Wi-Fi 7/? > in 2023, with new drivers. Wireless extensions haven't been in > real development since 2006. Since wireless has evolved a lot, > and continues to evolve significantly with MLO, there's really s/MLO/Multi-Link Operation/? It would good to spell out the acronym at least once per commit log. > no good way to still support wireless extensions for devices > that do MLO. > > Stop supporting wireless extensions for new devices. We don't > consider this a regression since no such devices (apart from > hwsim) exist yet. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > --- > net/wireless/wext-core.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-core.c b/net/wireless/wext-core.c > index cbeb8be214a8..d3b5cf02690c 100644 > --- a/net/wireless/wext-core.c > +++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c > @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev) > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext && > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats) { > wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); > + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) > + return NULL; Should we have a some kind of warning in this case as well? Otherwise the user has no idea why it stopped working, right? > return dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats(dev); > } > #endif > @@ -702,6 +704,8 @@ static iw_handler get_handler(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int cmd) > #ifdef CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT > if (dev->ieee80211_ptr && dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy) { > wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); > + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) > + return NULL; And here?
On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 12:51 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes: > > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> > > > > These are new devices that will be introduced into the market > > s/new/Wi-Fi 7/? > > > in 2023, with new drivers. Wireless extensions haven't been in > > real development since 2006. Since wireless has evolved a lot, > > and continues to evolve significantly with MLO, there's really > > s/MLO/Multi-Link Operation/? > > It would good to spell out the acronym at least once per commit log. :) > > +++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c > > @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev) > > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext && > > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats) { > > wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); > > + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) > > + return NULL; > > Should we have a some kind of warning in this case as well? Otherwise > the user has no idea why it stopped working, right? Well it's added after the warning wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(), so it already prints the warning from the previous. I guess we could make an argument to the warning and modify the message if it's rejected? johannes
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes: > On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 12:51 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes: >> >> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> >> > >> > These are new devices that will be introduced into the market >> >> s/new/Wi-Fi 7/? >> >> > in 2023, with new drivers. Wireless extensions haven't been in >> > real development since 2006. Since wireless has evolved a lot, >> > and continues to evolve significantly with MLO, there's really >> >> s/MLO/Multi-Link Operation/? >> >> It would good to spell out the acronym at least once per commit log. > > :) > >> > +++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c >> > @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev) >> > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext && >> > dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats) { >> > wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); >> > + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) >> > + return NULL; >> >> Should we have a some kind of warning in this case as well? Otherwise >> the user has no idea why it stopped working, right? > > Well it's added after the warning wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(), so it > already prints the warning from the previous. > > I guess we could make an argument to the warning and modify the message > if it's rejected? Sorry, I was blind again :) I first read that the call to wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext() was removed, but clearly it wasn't, and IMHO that warning is enough. So please ignore this comment.
diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-core.c b/net/wireless/wext-core.c index cbeb8be214a8..d3b5cf02690c 100644 --- a/net/wireless/wext-core.c +++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev) dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext && dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats) { wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) + return NULL; return dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats(dev); } #endif @@ -702,6 +704,8 @@ static iw_handler get_handler(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int cmd) #ifdef CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT if (dev->ieee80211_ptr && dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy) { wireless_warn_cfg80211_wext(); + if (dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_SUPPORTS_MLO) + return NULL; handlers = dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext; } #endif