On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 11:13 +0300, Andrei Otcheretianski wrote: > sdata->reserved_chandef is passed to > ieee80211_chanctx_non_reserved_chandef, so it takes the reservation > into account when the required chandef is recalculated. > This is what I tried to say here. I'll rephrase to make it more clear. Ok, thanks. > > > 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. > > I don't see any issue here. sdata->reserved_chandef isn't overwritten > and it is what sdata really needs. Yes, good point, sorry. I confused the pointer assignments with struct assignments. 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
