Message ID | 20230925115822.12131-1-quic_adisi@quicinc.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | wifi: cfg80211/mac80211: add link_id handling in AP channel switch during Multi-Link Operation | expand |
On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 17:28 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > > -void ieee80211_csa_finish(struct ieee80211_vif *vif) > +void ieee80211_csa_finish(struct ieee80211_vif *vif, unsigned int link_id) > { > struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata = vif_to_sdata(vif); > struct ieee80211_local *local = sdata->local; > + struct ieee80211_link_data *link_data; > + > + if (WARN_ON(link_id > IEEE80211_MLD_MAX_NUM_LINKS)) > + return; >=. You also have that in the other patch. johannes
On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 18:49 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > > > > Perhaps we should just get rid of sdata_dereference() entirely, after > > all, it's the same now, just the arguments are switched for no good > > reason. > Yup agreed. Are you already aware of any WIP in this regards? If not, I > can take care for the CSA part at least in same series (in a different > patch obviously :) ) No, I was just thinking out loud now :) It'd be a trivial spatch, but I guess it'd be nicer to not have all that "sdata->local->hw.wiphy" in there if there's already another local or even wiphy variable in the function. And then while that's probably still possible in spatch, it's no longer trivial ;-) johannes
On 9/25/23 18:51, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 18:49 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps we should just get rid of sdata_dereference() entirely, after >>> all, it's the same now, just the arguments are switched for no good >>> reason. >> Yup agreed. Are you already aware of any WIP in this regards? If not, I >> can take care for the CSA part at least in same series (in a different >> patch obviously :) ) > > No, I was just thinking out loud now :) Sure. > > It'd be a trivial spatch, but I guess it'd be nicer to not have all that > "sdata->local->hw.wiphy" in there if there's already another local or > even wiphy variable in the function. And then while that's probably > still possible in spatch, it's no longer trivial ;-) Haha! Okay, let me see what I can do.