| Message ID | 24df3a0c-a312-d9b6-5840-1eacd79d824b@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Johannes Berg |
| Headers | show |
| Series | wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers | expand |
Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: > Hi Johannes, > > Currently for MLO test, the others links's rx_nss of struct > ieee80211_link_sta is still value 0 in ieee80211_set_associated(), > becaue they are not pass into ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss() in > mac80211 except the deflink which means the primary link. > This lead driver get nss = 0 for other links. Will you fix it > or is it design by default? > > Only primary link has valid rx_nss value which is not 0 by below call stack. > ieee80211_assoc_success()-> > rate_control_rate_init(sta); > > commit:c71420db653aba30a234d1e4cf86dde376e604fa > wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers Strange format and s-o-b missing. Was this meant as an RFC patch?
On 9/12/2022 6:49 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: > >> Hi Johannes, >> >> Currently for MLO test, the others links's rx_nss of struct >> ieee80211_link_sta is still value 0 in ieee80211_set_associated(), >> becaue they are not pass into ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss() in >> mac80211 except the deflink which means the primary link. >> This lead driver get nss = 0 for other links. Will you fix it >> or is it design by default? >> >> Only primary link has valid rx_nss value which is not 0 by below call stack. >> ieee80211_assoc_success()-> >> rate_control_rate_init(sta); >> >> commit:c71420db653aba30a234d1e4cf86dde376e604fa >> wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers > Strange format and s-o-b missing. Was this meant as an RFC patch? This is not a patch for review, it is to ask some question about the patch "wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers" which is already upstream.
Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: > On 9/12/2022 6:49 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: >> >>> Hi Johannes, >>> >>> Currently for MLO test, the others links's rx_nss of struct >>> ieee80211_link_sta is still value 0 in ieee80211_set_associated(), >>> becaue they are not pass into ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss() in >>> mac80211 except the deflink which means the primary link. >>> This lead driver get nss = 0 for other links. Will you fix it >>> or is it design by default? >>> >>> Only primary link has valid rx_nss value which is not 0 by below call stack. >>> ieee80211_assoc_success()-> >>> rate_control_rate_init(sta); >>> >>> commit:c71420db653aba30a234d1e4cf86dde376e604fa >>> wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers >> Strange format and s-o-b missing. Was this meant as an RFC patch? > > This is not a patch for review, it is to ask some question about the patch > > "wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers" which is already upstream. Then you should not add "[PATCH]" in the subject. The string "[PATCH]" is supposed to inform that the email contains a patch which should be applied.
Please ignore this mail which is not really for patch review. On 9/12/2022 7:05 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: > >> On 9/12/2022 6:49 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com> writes: >>> >>>> Hi Johannes, >>>> >>>> Currently for MLO test, the others links's rx_nss of struct >>>> ieee80211_link_sta is still value 0 in ieee80211_set_associated(), >>>> becaue they are not pass into ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss() in >>>> mac80211 except the deflink which means the primary link. >>>> This lead driver get nss = 0 for other links. Will you fix it >>>> or is it design by default? >>>> >>>> Only primary link has valid rx_nss value which is not 0 by below call stack. >>>> ieee80211_assoc_success()-> >>>> rate_control_rate_init(sta); >>>> >>>> commit:c71420db653aba30a234d1e4cf86dde376e604fa >>>> wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers >>> Strange format and s-o-b missing. Was this meant as an RFC patch? >> This is not a patch for review, it is to ask some question about the patch >> >> "wifi: mac80211: RCU-ify link STA pointers" which is already upstream. > Then you should not add "[PATCH]" in the subject. The string "[PATCH]" > is supposed to inform that the email contains a patch which should be > applied. >
diff --git a/net/mac80211/rate.c b/net/mac80211/rate.c index c58d9689f51f..7947e9a162a9 100644 --- a/net/mac80211/rate.c +++ b/net/mac80211/rate.c @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ void rate_control_rate_init(struct sta_info *sta) struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband; struct ieee80211_chanctx_conf *chanctx_conf; - ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss(sta, 0); + ieee80211_sta_set_rx_nss(&sta->deflink); if (!ref) return;