On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 11:27 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > On 3/26/24 09:58, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > > > Can you fix > > > that too? And if you fix that ... yeah we probably still should have > > > this patch but ... _without_ this: > > > > > > > Sure let me try to fix that as well. So here's what Im planning - > > 1. Separate the ether_addr changes into a separate independent patch. > > 2. Patch series to fix the active flag handling at link level. > > Upon checking further, I see - > > If we fix the setting of the flag only when first link comes up and > reset it only when last link is removed, then probably there is no need > to add separate handler - ieee80211_is_link_bss_active() to check if > any one link is active or not. > > FWIW, the purpose of the new function introduced is to check if at least > one of the link is active. And now if the flag is set, this ultimately > means that one link is at least active. So we do not need to go and > check in each link again right? > Yes, which is why I even noticed the whole mess with 'active'. johannes
