Hi Johannes,
On 07/08/2016 05:32 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 02:08 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote:
The current mechanism to detect hot-plug / unplug of wireless devices
is
somewhat arcane. One has to listen to NEW_WIPHY/DEL_WIPHY events
over
nl80211 as well as RTM_NEWLINK / RTM_DELLINK events over rtnl, then
somehow find a correlation between these events. This involves
userspace
sending GET_INTERFACE or GET_WIPHY commands to the kernel, which
incurs
additional roundtrips.
This patch series proposes that NEW_INTERFACE and DEL_INTERFACE
events are
always emitted, regardless of whether a netdev was added/removed by
the
driver or explicitly via NEW_INTERFACE/DEL_INTERFACE commands.
One side effect of this approach is that multiple
NEW_INTERFACE/DEL_INTERFACE
events might be generated for P2P interfaces. Once when a wdev is
created
or destroyed, and once when the associated p2p netdev is connecte or
disconnected.
I think you got some things mixed up. Are you talking of P2P GO/client
interfaces, which have netdevs, but are really the same as AP/BSS
client and thus the issue here would affect the others? Or are you
talking about the P2P-Device wdev? but that has no netdev.
Apologies, I've only been looking at the kernel side for several days,
so my understanding is still incomplete.
I was looking at mac80211/iface.c: ieee80211_if_add() which seems to
handle NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE specially by not creating/registering a
net_device object. For some reason I thought that this object was
registered somewhere later, but my understanding was incorrect. So the
entire 'side effect' paragraph above does not apply.
Are you okay with the general approach? Are there any locking issues I
might be overlooking?
It is likely that only the caller of P2P oriented
NEW_INTERFACE / DEL_INTERFACE commands is interested in the status of
these
operations. E.g. the caller is / should be using SOCKET_OWNER
attribute.
Thus one possibility is to not emit NEW_INTERFACE/DEL_INTERFACE
events in
such cases.
The breaking up of patches is also confusing. You seem to be
introducing things in the first, then breaking them again, and then
fixing them?
Sorry, this was meant to be posted as an RFC.
First patch just introduces a notification utility. The rest of the
patches were broken up for ease of review.
Couldn't the whole thing be done in one or maybe two (new/del)
patch(es)?
Sure, I can squash them together however you like.
(You obviously also need to sign off your patches, see the kernel
Documentation/)
Apologies, still working the kinks out of my environment setup.
Regards,
-Denis
--
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
