From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A088D358D3D; Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771847432; cv=none; b=rbujw5dbNpkcwhLAueYZhNCyOU5nHIS/qsd9E9Tc9OCEAnx0xX901uWB9pynW4p71Hjk/6sPHz+nBcJ2mR8PCEH/GmiK5bHbkvSTVMKusGWEFDDDIIap/V0q9Bj81TJFOHPrOH+91he2hmIg/vwk6OaUGhBgmgJgdJ4SjO4JHlo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771847432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hGyhK0C4vNASkIvbnl9A9X0cGhUEHX938Bet6cDRYzM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ClIDoHBMFidAwYElcTW1EU9KHbUq5aSkqNi0KkQucJVB9sIv1Kch7E5M+kx22zCX3HxIdiau8Kj7KFqVIkoFTNwWP86zvpYVP5uFOpC3pt+vFIWxaDwLyOY0tBIc8wZPR3jI2o5+gu6eI7Sygo3Q4XBIhkEuEZOYk6nwNEpdslo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=UpmuEe4C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="UpmuEe4C" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=hGyhK0C4vNASkIvbnl9A9X0cGhUEHX938Bet6cDRYzM=; t=1771847431; x=1773057031; b=UpmuEe4C6gJT7ITY3qt6o46rx3PZFeKgiGlhUYu/gO+AOyq whBNOD9ak2ZDZjOdY9VkXYn7AiQk2NUqU+brMwrTe98HEMshwnLnAZqJNYk/K54jDAgq4a6aiIdJe ABjn/BxFdot+JrxQN3up6Mt9jGUqlDHbQXPbFUZyffk7r8LdfmiSD4ATjpuQIe4NnTT+Y2rZYBiji CNBei6/E4Qk7QoteKt1xwcbU3rN/Km86jvzl1CGNJWtWhTayoLP4zN1F5yG4TqRGhCAzKRfjpjC3Y 5i+ZcxGK5mJn2zsG4ju5g4Ftmq47bccqr/OpPNinlAcvn2DhShJV8+k2QGO7Ckpg==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vuUSL-0000000H1KR-1Z33; Mon, 23 Feb 2026 12:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <0f0703e2749185f9a334b3435ffe247b42e6923b.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless] wifi: mac80211: Fix ADDBA update when HW supports reordering From: Johannes Berg To: Remi Pommarel Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pablo MARTIN-GOMEZ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 12:50:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <5806bab7e46506d3c300ab4eb66989d42936aeb0.1771323902.git.repk@triplefau.lt> <6ed3a0ee5e15c73f304050d303e74441cdf61659.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Sun, 2026-02-22 at 17:06 +0100, Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > That does make sense. However, if I understand correctly, it means th= at > > > even if we end up storing the timeout for drivers that support > > > reordering, a new IEEE80211_AMPDU_RX_UPDATE should still be introduce= d, > > > right? > >=20 > > I guess in order to do a no-op update that doesn't change the timeout, > > we could? But not sure it's all worth it? >=20 > I was going to say it would not be a no-op for a buf_size update but, > if I understand correctly, even when SUPPORTS_REORDERING_BUFFER is not > set the buf_size update is ignored completely and the reorder_buf is > not resized yet a successful addba response is sent. Don't we need to > check for buf_size change as well as timeout also? I was going to say that I thought buf_size is not allowed to change, but (re)reading the spec doesn't seem to bear that out. I guess we could just unconditionally reject any updates. I'm not sure now why we ever added the update in the first place. Perhaps some implementation was doing no-op updates and failing on negative responses? > > Pablo seems to have looked up that it _is_ supported - which I didn't > > expect because it's not part of the API contract, so the drivers > > implemented something that can't actually ever get hit? Seems odd. And > > I'm pretty sure e.g. iwlwifi wouldn't support it. > >=20 > > But I basically also think it's not worth it in practice; why try to > > support something that's never going to happen? >=20 > Just to confirm, you mean that updating the timeout is not worth it, but > fixing this issue is still needed right? Right. johannes