On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 07:52 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote:
> So you're basically saying the new attribute should be used as an
> array attribute instead. Sounds good, but..
>
> What about backward compatibility? Do we not care? Or should we
> preserve old parsing for single-interface CSA (i.e. older hostapd)?
I think we have to preserve the old parsing if the new isn't present,
but that shouldn't be all that difficult?
if (info->attrs[MULTI])
for_each_attr(a, info->attrs[MULTI])
parse_nested(a, attrs);
parse(attrs);
else
parse(info->attrs);
or something like that, right?
> > is more error prone as it would allow older kernels to parse the whole
> > thing while ignoring the next/more/whatever, so you'd get some weird
> > subset of the intended behaviour. Forcing *all* interfaces into the
> > sub-attribute when more than one is desired (or in fact for a single
> > one, if you're ok with requiring a kernel with support) would IMHO be
> > less error prone.
>
> From a practical point of view cfg80211 should deny such a request due
> to multi-channel (interface combination) and by (the only CSA
> implementator in upstream) mac80211 due to chanctx->refcount > 1.
Hmm, true. I'd still prefer the other version, the stacked/nested one
kinda makes me uncomfortable ... It'll work, no doubt about it, but the
deep nesting I'm not really happy with.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
