On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:29:27PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2019-01-28 12:16, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:41:45AM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> > >> Moreover I am a little worried about tpt regressions with this patch. > >> > >> Are you sure that if you use complete different mac addresses on a multivif scenario > >> > >> you can get the same tpt on all the interfaces? Could you please provide some > >> > >> tpt results? > >> > > > >> > > How exactly posted patch can cause tpt regression ? > >> > > > >> > > Posted patch just add possibility to configure HW MAC address > >> > > by this: > >> > > > >> > > iw dev wlan0 del > >> > > iw phy phy0 interface add wlan0 type managed addr 00:11:22:33:44:55 > >> > > > >> > > what is feature of mt76x2u. Patch just extend that possibly to other > >> > > mt76x02 devices and allow to remove custom mt76x2u add_interfacea > >> > > callback. > >> > The main part that could cause issues is that you're changing the way > >> > that the vif index is calculated. Without the patch, it's calculated > >> > from the MAC address in a way consistent with what the hardware expects. > >> > With the patch, it's just allocated from a mask. > >> > The vif index ends up being passed down to the hardware as a BSS index > >> > WCID attribute in mt76x02_mac_wcid_setup. > >> > We would have to run some tests with multiple AP interfaces, bringing up > >> > secondary interfaces in a different order to see if there are any > >> > regressions there if the BSS index no longer matches the MAC address > >> > based index. > >> > >> Ok, that objection make sense. I'll check that. > > > > I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or current code is > > wrong. But when I configure multi bssid's is hostapd.conf like this: > > > > 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > 06:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > 0a:aa:bb:cc:dd:e0 > > > > hostapd fail with "Too many bits in the BSSID mask" error . To make hostapd > > work, I have configure bssid's like this: > Do you have a bssid mask set? I don't think the current code does that. > Also, in OpenWrt, I didn't see any issue like that. Not sure if there is bssid mask option , seems hostapd calculate that from provided bssid= fields. However I realized there is use_driver_iface_addr=1 and that make things work as expected. Thanks Stanislaw
