On 11/25/2016 9:25 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
Sorry, forgot to reply to this until Luca's email bumped it up...
On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 21:06 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
Are we? Currently, the minimum is not checked in nl80211, but that
does not say anything about the driver which might validate the
interval as well and return an error.
Well, since drivers currently don't return an error (even if they
ignore the value!) that *does* change the API.
What made me start looking at this is that in brcmfmac the interval
in the request was ignored and a fixed interval was provisioned in
the device. I wanted to fix that but was not sure if I needed to
check it against our firmware min..max range and what the appropriate
error handling should be. If silently changing what user-space is
requesting is fine for this, I am happy to make it so. Preferably in
nl80211.
I think (agreeing with Luca) bumping it up is fine.
Fine by me although the "drift over time" reason seems only more reason
to have minimum validation mainly because nowhere is nl80211.h it is
stated that the interval is a "soft" requirement. Now Luca proposes
bumping to minimum should be done in the driver. What is your opinion?
I will update the kernel doc to clarify what can be expected from the
interval value.
Regards,
Arend
