Hi Wen,
> I see you have merged v2 to wireless-next.git and this v3's state is reject.
Yeah. Actually, I saw v3 only after I merged v2, but then I saw what the
change was and figured that was unnecessary anyway.
> So do you mean we should not keep hole BIT 24 in enum wiphy_flags from
> now as well as hole 11/12 in commit 8e8b41f9d8c8/ca986ad9bcd3?
Indeed. The point of the comment saying "use" was to actually, well,
_use_ the hole next time. I haven't really enforced that since I keep
forgetting (and we're nowhere near running out of bits), but yes, the
point is that you could even have used bit 11 or 12.
> If that, then backport this patch will be more complex, because the
> backport kernel already have
> WIPHY_FLAG_HAS_STATIC_WEP= BIT(24), then firstly the backport kernel
> need backport other
> patch(585b6e1304dc ("wifi: cfg80211: remove support for static WEP"))
> which is not really needed.
I guess it could use another bit number (such as 11) in a backport, but
I don't see that this really _needs_ to be backported? And if you're
using backports to backport the whole wifi stack then this isn't even a
question since it all comes in backports.
johannes
