On 28 April 2014 10:22, Jouni Malinen <jouni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Implement the new cfg80211 capability to enable mac80211-based drivers
> to support for dynamic channel bandwidth changes (e.g., HT 20/40 MHz
> changes).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jouni Malinen <jouni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/mac80211/cfg.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/cfg.c b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> index aaa59d7..1ce407a 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> @@ -3949,6 +3949,21 @@ static int ieee80211_set_qos_map(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int ieee80211_set_ap_channel(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> + struct net_device *dev,
> + struct cfg80211_chan_def *chandef)
> +{
> + struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata = IEEE80211_DEV_TO_SUB_IF(dev);
> + int ret;
> + u32 changed = 0;
> +
Shouldn't interface combinations be verified here? What if there was a
bandwidth upgrade (after a downgrade) but in the meantime a vif with a
to-be incompatible chandef was brought up? I think the existing usage
of ieee80211_vif_change_bandwidth() in ieee80211_config_bw() already
suffers from this problem or am I missing something?
> + ret = ieee80211_vif_change_bandwidth(sdata, chandef, &changed);
> + if (ret == 0)
> + ieee80211_bss_info_change_notify(sdata, changed);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Michał
--
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
