On 12.06.24 14:05, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:04 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >
> > Use the sum of the number of interfaces from each radio instead of the
> > maximum.
>
> Oh, then legacy user have misconception of the global interfaces
> advertised and try to fail for the allowed limits.
Sure, but that might be an issue either way until user space is updated
and users start looking at the per-radio ifcomb data.
I'm kind of with Karthikeyan here - this could be understood as a
regression, since you're now telling userspace something you can't
actually do.
Well, we can actually do it, just with some extra restrictions - i.e.
the interfaces we create need to be spread across radios to match the
per-radio limits.
The global data is simply not enough to describe the details of the
radio split.
Obviously, but that doesn't mean the global data as advertised in the
existing attributes must be *wrong*. It could be a subset, and the
superset data is only available to new implementations.
So you'd prefer something like picking one radio and advertising its
limits instead?
- Felix
