On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 11:53 +0300, andrei.otc@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Andrei Otcheretianski <andrei.otcheretianski@xxxxxxxxx> > > When a vif is assigned to a reserved channel context (during CSA, for example) This .. doesn't make much sense. vifs aren't assigned to channel contexts, it's the other way around. I guess I'll rewrite that to "When a vif starts using a reserved channel context (...)" > the width of this chanctx should be adjusted to be the maximum between the > reserved chandef and all the chandefs of other assigned vifs. This is not what you do - you don't take anything in the chanctx into account. ieee80211_chanctx_non_reserved_chandef() just recalculates the required chanctx, and you're fixing the code to actually apply the recalculated value. > Not doing so would result in using chanctx with narrower width than actually > required. Fix this by calling ieee80211_change_chanctx with the widest common > chandef. This both changes the chanctx's width and recalcs min_def. This seems possible, yeah. > chandef = ieee80211_chanctx_non_reserved_chandef(local, new_ctx, > &sdata->reserved_chandef); > if (WARN_ON(!chandef)) > return -EINVAL; > > + ieee80211_change_chanctx(local, new_ctx, chandef); > + > vif_chsw[0].vif = &sdata->vif; > vif_chsw[0].old_ctx = &old_ctx->conf; > vif_chsw[0].new_ctx = &new_ctx->conf; [...] > ieee80211_vif_update_chandef(sdata, &sdata->reserved_chandef); Hmm. (added more context) The code here seems to be wrong though. It shouldn't overwrite reserved_chandef, or it shouldn't call ieee80211_vif_update_chandef() with it, as the vif's bss_conf.chandef should represent what *this* vif wants/needs, while you're now putting there what the *combination* requires in the chandef. That's clearly wrong - please submit a new patch that fixes all the issues in these functions. 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
