[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PA4PR04MB96380A04A6830AB69024E4B2D1F62@PA4PR04MB9638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 00:50:59 +0000
From: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>, "francesco@...cini.it"
<francesco@...cini.it>, Pete Hsieh <tsung-hsien.hsieh@....com>, Francesco
Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client
mode
Hi Brian,
> From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 6:55 AM
> To: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> kvalo@...nel.org; francesco@...cini.it; Pete Hsieh
> <tsung-hsien.hsieh@....com>; Francesco Dolcini
> <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client
> mode
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> this email' button
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:01 PM David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com> wrote:
> > I think it needs time to support probe client. Can we put your
> > suggested comments to the code used to hook probe_client() and add
> >
> > "TODO: support probe client" to mwifiex_cfg80211_probe_client().
>
> Are you suggesting that you plan to actually implement proper probe_client
> support? Did you already do what I suggested, and understand why hostapd
> needs probe_client support? This seems to be a common pattern -- that
> reviewers are asking for you to do your research, and it takes several
> requests before you actually do it.
>
> Now that I've tried to do that research for you ... it looks like hostapd uses
> probe_client to augment TX MGMT acks, as a proxy for station presence /
> inactivity. If a station is inactive and non-responsive, we disconnect it
> eventually. So that looks to me like probe_client support should actually be
> optional, if your driver reports TX status? And in that case, I'd still
> recommend you try to fix hostapd.
>
> But if you're really planning to implement proper probe_client support, then
> I suppose the TODO approach is also OK.
>
> I'd also request that you please actually do your research when reviewers
> ask questions. I'm frankly not sure why I'm spending my time on the above
> research, when the onus should be on the submitter to explain why they're
> doing what they're doing.
>
> Brian
Yes. I know when aging time of station is out, hostapd will use probe_client to check if station is still there before really disconnect it.
Without this feature, it won't really affect mayor function of hostapd.
That is the reason that I suggest that we put comments and TODO to the code.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists