> I was just thinking out loud :) cfg80211_validate_beacon_int -> cfg80211_iter_combinations shall be invoked for the interface combinations , currently. diff_beacon_int_gcd_min is applicable for the interface combinations and am not sure how can we validate this for a single interface . This specific interface can be part of two different groups ( interface combinations) with different values for "diff_beacon_int_gcd_min". I don't think we can get the match for the right set of combination here , isn't ? To make things simple , can we ignore the following rule " When >0, any beacon interval must also be bigger than this value." and rather have only the following one ? " When >0, different beacon intervals must have a GCD that's at least as big as this value." (To be more precise , any second interface which does not meet this rule , will fail to start ) . Regards, Sunil -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:13 PM To: Undekari, Sunil Dutt <usdutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kushwaha, Purushottam <pkushwah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Malinen, Jouni <jouni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Hullur Subramanyam, Amarnath <amarnath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kumar, Deepak (QCA) <djindal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] cfg80211: Provision to allow the support for different beacon intervals On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 11:34 +0000, Undekari, Sunil Dutt wrote: > > > > The clarification that it also represents the minimum for a single > > beacon interval would make some sense to me, but at the same time it > > can't be used only for that, so perhaps separating a minimum out > > >(rather than using the hard-coded minimum of 10) would make sense. > Sorry . Could not get your statement above . Are you saying to not > check if the beacon interval is < 10 in cfg80211_validate_beacon_int > rather only consider > 10000 and do the validation if the configured > beacon interval is less than diff_beacon_int_gcd_min , when configured > ? > If yes , how do you want the validation for the BI ( < 10 ) for the > first interface to happen ? I was just thinking out loud :) Right now we verify that it's >=10, but does that make sense if say min_gcd is 20? Mathematically, defining gcd(n)=n would make sense, so if you just had a single interface, applying the min_gcd would mean that this is also the minimum beacon interval. We can still leave the <10 check, but if the min_gcd is set treat just a single interface with beaconing with the above gcd() definition and check that the beacon interval is >= min_gcd? Really that just means extending the function to calculate the GCD to be able to return a value for a single number. But maybe I'm overdesigning this :) johannes ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
