On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 12:21 AM Krishna Chaitanya <chaitanya.mgit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:16 PM Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:49:52AM +0530, Chaitanya Tata wrote: > > > MBO is mandatory for WFA certification but WNM is not, so, in order to > > > have a lean build for WFA certification only, de-couple WNM from MBO so > > > that it can be compiled out. > > > > > > WNM is still auto-selected automatically when MBO is enabled, this > > > behaviour is unchanged. > > > > I'm not sure what this is trying to achieve.. As far as the claim about > > WNM not being needed for MBO is concerned, the Wi-Fi Agile Multiband > > specification mandate STA to support WNM-Notification Request frame. > The idea is to only include the support for that Notification request frame > and disable the rest of WNM to save memory (wnm_sta.o is ~24K text). > > > > > diff --git a/wpa_supplicant/mbo.c b/wpa_supplicant/mbo.c > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_WNM > > > static void wpas_mbo_send_wnm_notification(struct wpa_supplicant *wpa_s, > > > const u8 *data, size_t len) > > > > And as far as adding CONFIG_WNM in mbo.c is concerned, this would have > > no impact since this file is included only if CONFIG_MBO=y is defined > > and if CONFIG_MBO is defined, then so will CONFIG_WNM. > Yes, I don't want to change this behaviour, but if someone wants to save > memory then WNM can be disabled and MBO would still work. > > Of course, this patch is wrong, I will push a v2 that properly fixes the issue. Looks like, we need to separate out BTM code to a separate file btm.c and include it for both MBO and WNM (NEED_BTM=y). This way we can get rid of rest of the WNM. WDYT? _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
