On 2018-11-06 15:46, Sergey Matyukevich wrote:
Hello Tamizh,
Co-Developed-by: Tamizh Chelvam <tamizhr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 14 +++++++
include/uapi/linux/nl80211.h | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
net/wireless/nl80211.c | 86
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
net/wireless/rdev-ops.h | 15 ++++++++
net/wireless/trace.h | 27 +++++++++++++
5 files changed, 211 insertions(+)
...
diff --git a/include/net/cfg80211.h b/include/net/cfg80211.h
index 5801d76..dd024da 100644
--- a/include/net/cfg80211.h
+++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
...
/**
@@ -4035,6 +4044,9 @@ struct wiphy_iftype_ext_capab {
* @txq_limit: configuration of internal TX queue frame limit
* @txq_memory_limit: configuration internal TX queue memory limit
* @txq_quantum: configuration of internal TX queue scheduler quantum
+ *
+ * @max_data_retry_count: Maximum limit can be configured as retry
count
+ * for a TID.
*/
struct wiphy {
/* assign these fields before you register the wiphy */
@@ -4171,6 +4183,8 @@ struct wiphy {
u32 txq_memory_limit;
u32 txq_quantum;
+ u8 max_data_retry_count;
+
char priv[0] __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
};
Could you please clarify why do you define max_data_retry_count instead
of
making use of existing wiphy params: retry_short (dot11ShortRetryLimit)
and retry_long (dot11LongRetryLimit) ?
max_data_retry_count added to validate the max limit for the retry count
supported by the driver.
existing wiphy parames: retry_short and retry_long can be modified
through user command.
So, I've added this param for validation purpose. Correct me If I'm
wrong.
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
index d744388..d386ad7 100644
--- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c
+++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
...
+static int nl80211_set_tid_config(struct sk_buff *skb,
+ struct genl_info *info)
+{
+ struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = info->user_ptr[0];
+ struct nlattr *attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_MAX + 1];
+ struct nlattr *tid;
+ struct net_device *dev = info->user_ptr[1];
+ const char *peer = NULL;
+ u8 tid_no;
+ int ret = -EINVAL, retry_short = -1, retry_long = -1;
+
+ tid = info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_CONFIG];
+ if (!tid)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ ret = nla_parse_nested(attrs, NL80211_ATTR_TID_MAX, tid,
+ nl80211_attr_tid_policy, info->extack);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (!attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID])
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_RETRY_SHORT]) {
+ retry_short =
nla_get_u8(attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_RETRY_SHORT]);
+ if (!retry_short ||
+ retry_short > rdev->wiphy.max_data_retry_count)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_RETRY_LONG]) {
+ retry_long =
nla_get_u8(attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID_RETRY_LONG]);
+ if (!retry_long ||
+ retry_long > rdev->wiphy.max_data_retry_count)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ tid_no = nla_get_u8(attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID]);
+ if (tid_no >= IEEE80211_FIRST_TSPEC_TSID)
+ return -EINVAL;
Not that important, but this tid_no check can be placed after
attrs[NL80211_ATTR_TID].
BTW, some special tid_no value (e.g. (u8)-1) could be used to notify
driver
that retry settings should be applied for all the TIDs. IIUC the only
required change would be to modify this tid_no sanity check.
Sure, we can use that.
Regards,
Sergey
Thanks,
Tamizh.
