On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 07:42 +, Kushwaha, Purushottam wrote:
> >
> > However, it seems pretty easy to solve by passing another bool that
> > indicates "all the same"?
> Yes . Thanks .
> We are planning to get the following changes in 2 commits . Let me
> know your consent .
> 1. cfg80211: Pro
essage-
From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johan...@sipsolutions.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:51 PM
To: Undekari, Sunil Dutt ; Kushwaha, Purushottam
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Malinen, Jouni ;
Hullur Subramanyam, Amarnath
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] cfg80211: Provision to allow
Hi,
> In PATCH v8 , cfg80211_validate_beacon_int ->
> cfg80211_iter_combinations carries the argument iftype_num , which
> also considers the "new interface" that is getting added.
Ah, right, I remember now, sorry.
> Thus , in the example you have quoted above , the iftype_num shall
> represent
Hi Johannes,
>> 2. Since "diff_beacon_int_gcd_min" is only specified / advertised in
>> the interface combinations , our logic was to get the minimal
>> "diff_beacon_int_gcd_min" of all the matching combinations and later
>> compare with the new beacon interval. (API
>> "cfg80211_iter_comb
Hi,
Sorry for the long delay.
> > In order to validate a new beacon interval, you're first looking up
> > the min GCD value of all the combinations that allow the *current*
> > scenario, but doing that matching without the right # of channels
> > or radar detect parameters? And then you're trying
ns" )
Regards,
Sunil
-Original Message-
From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johan...@sipsolutions.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:54 PM
To: Kushwaha, Purushottam
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Malinen, Jouni ;
Undekari, Sunil Dutt ; Hullur Subramanyam, Amarnath
Subject: Re
Hmm. Apart from some misleading documentation, that doesn't mention
"GCD" at all, the logic seems odd.
In order to validate a new beacon interval, you're first looking up the
min GCD value of all the combinations that allow the *current*
scenario, but doing that matching without the right # of cha
