On 2/15/2023 3:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
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.
If use another bit such as 11 while backport this patch, then it will
easily lead mismatch/error
and increase difficulty of maintain code.
I need backport this patch soon.
johannes
