Hi, Sorry - missed that mail somehow. > 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 ? Well if you have just a single interface, any combination that contains it is valid, so you'd just continue? I *think* the code works by checking if any combination applies to the currently desired state, and rejects if no combination is possible, that would still be perfectly reasonable here, no? > 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 ) . Yeah, I suppose we could, but does that really make sense? If you can have a smaller BI, then you could as well have a smaller GCD, no? johannes
