On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:59 +0800, Wen Gong wrote: > On 4/18/2023 4:15 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-04-17 at 22:07 +0800, Wen Gong wrote: > > > OK. So I will try to put this in mac80211 layer, is it OK? > > > > > I guess? I'm still not really sure why you even want it, but hey, that's > > up to you in a way. I really didn't like the suggestion with > > wiphy_iftype_ext_capab (or any other capability for that matter), it > > feels like it should be more dynamic, like maybe a new "add link" > > callback or something? At least then you can't blame mac80211 for when > > it breaks when you have two 5 GHz links ... > > ok, so I would like to add callback such as > > "add_link(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif vif, struct > ieee80211_bss_conf *link_conf, unsigned int link_id)" > > in struct ieee80211_ops, and mac80211 call it in > ieee80211_mgd_setup_link()/ieee80211_vif_update_links, > > then lower-drvier could dynamic set the local addr of assoc > link_conf(also for 2nd link_conf), is it OK? > Seems OK, but I'm not sure that _works_? After all, we first set the addresses in assoc_data, when we don't have a link_conf yet, no? Just what we were discussing in the other thread about the leak. johannes
