From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Matthew Wang <matthewmwang@google.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Kirtika Ruchandani <kirtika@google.com>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Subject: Re: Flag for detecting 802.11r Fast BSS Transition support
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:29:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXNC0hwFzSTvZmUq-B7r_H+pZ3N=p_kjfMqKb1gftsmDKw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7687225C-D965-479E-BAE8-769B0AEADD76@holtmann.org>
Hi Marcel,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:54 AM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:
> > Well, I guess we could just run the command and look for EOPNOTSUPP...
>
> this kind of API design and usage is bad. Try-and-error approach is just not sustainable.
Sure. That "suggestion" was quite literally an afterthought. Not
really a proper suggestion.
> Even while it is late to add a proper flag that indicates support, we need to do this to make nl80211 better for the future.
I suppose. I'm not quite sure how I would make use of that properly
though, given the corpus of kernels out there where the flag doesn't
exist (but the feature does). Some other heurestic for determining
kernel recency? Compile-time flags for the relevant user space, such
that one builds it for "new kernel API (w/ flag)" vs. "old kernel API"
(with the latter not even trying to look for the flag)?
Or I guess a more proactive approach: implement both a "supported" and
an "unsupported" flag, so user space can figure out a tristate: flag
not available (old kernel -- user space is left to guess) vs. command
supported flag vs. command not supported flag.
That seems a bit awkward though.
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-16 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-04 19:06 Flag for detecting 802.11r Fast BSS Transition support Matthew Wang
2019-04-03 21:02 ` Brian Norris
2019-04-08 19:52 ` Johannes Berg
2019-08-08 17:15 ` Brian Norris
2019-08-16 18:54 ` Marcel Holtmann
2019-08-16 20:29 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2019-08-17 13:40 ` Marcel Holtmann
2019-08-21 16:54 ` Brian Norris
2019-08-21 16:59 ` Marcel Holtmann
2019-08-21 8:03 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+ASDXNC0hwFzSTvZmUq-B7r_H+pZ3N=p_kjfMqKb1gftsmDKw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=j@w1.fi \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kirtika@google.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=matthewmwang@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).