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 6B0C913D28B; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:55:22 +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=1712735724; cv=none; b=PcxVNNb+NEWxvx7jiY0tllIMlrpm+rHdrbKlaS2q9+PmzWAOo3M0/Z0I/RSmQox0qi/0KW6t92sKMkuAzB7kvEuchp7U8DVeRQP86tsMTxbVGDV00rwWLlsFqR4Uf1hiBWYp2yA7uPw0aXsLQDBGFZ9ApqZ7lpHqp32GuSRb3Wg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712735724; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HcMcawYwrMbKNcpE8lk7DBbxiVe9ZzPEjbE5Enqe2Bs=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=tl4uSA1XDt61laQ5F4HbGZjAHKGYDjzozuWaxAdeDZ4wNZ9DQ5mWIosDjxsEvft56Ekj3E2vRGSQRVygBsfnCwGxxPfdisMSUiRaA5n1WhM+KB2xkM4Cd5ZRmzQSrkdgyEbOeGMiBNmEGhofeAgE1LWplj/MaY+9BtCepnmC9Ic= 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=UZ7GNjt1; 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="UZ7GNjt1" 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=ieFT59N5jWL4d5qY/lsIo26kUNWbiudGLqzvxyRefYQ=; t=1712735722; x=1713945322; b=UZ7GNjt1n+hgmWpIAFiYMVYTo4RD93nB/nR46flo+52Lvyp Wsc10ouQyWrX0ZF+T01njwizykidMARBcnVf1oUM51GJ7kZ/KlK59U+gtVHzB0ezQhg1mQ8iGYG7M CZcTuAB65OjCklmKikmUx4jrs93tN/f+hxlgr8nBf2z4cqJnitTHQES5844SBOO6BZC3Fp2JV44ai xE+K7HgcLk292mIzaVQiNU9JZUqOjEJNTsUn85vjoJmrQ5TgQYNseI+cES2GnntOPG90IP/PMGASN D3DSuxU4dwNgmb0BatE+BmAvTSpZToEiq3HAraPP7KfGRcg62JIsCeFQCDC66iEg==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1ruSnf-00000001Ees-42vq; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:55:20 +0200 Message-ID: <5cf6b243c3967cd5a630f8f8e5bf17f7c9010f01.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] wifi: mwifiex: add code to support host mlme From: Johannes Berg To: David Lin , Brian Norris Cc: Francesco Dolcini , "kvalo@kernel.org" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Pete Hsieh , "rafael.beims" , Francesco Dolcini Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:55:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <969e95ccc4a1d35b45212b7fcb536ee90995e3b5.camel@sipsolutions.net> <4e5f3741819e457c5c79d825c6520cb9ee531b95.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) 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 Wed, 2024-04-10 at 07:30 +0000, David Lin wrote: > Hi Johannes and Brian, > =20 > I think this patch is used to leverage MLME of wpa_supplicant and hos= tapd. It won't affect the usage of cfg80211 for mwifiex. I wonder if I can = prepare patch v10. No. That sentence tells me you've _still_ not understood any of the technical arguments in the thread, you're _still_ arguing with completely uninteresting arguments. Where before you had "it's well tested" and "it uses 'standard' APIs" now you're saying "it doesn't affect anyone else". All of that is obvious, and also completely besides the point. Please go back and actually _understand_ the discussion. Also actually _participate_ in the discussion too, so far you've pretty much only made empty arguments. Once you've understood the concerns and can explain why they don't apply, _then_ you can resend the patch. johannes