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 D8370176FB6; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:59:42 +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=1732093184; cv=none; b=XUviOoMLNygsASlAhgYNMho1Kho1E5AJ/zAb/+T9XHLsgHsIX/blBK8thMns+Eo8JWy6qGLsIo4PILqQkeGiur3EF6wQ2HmKbfCMqbPj0YiYBLQ5WsFt7uLgL9j460EEmfCTlp9qLhg0Bi4PicnsMYS1erngdKJbAfAUaqE+IL0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732093184; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aLc8Kf492MgjE+zyg6gQJeLIBhn15j3FbQt2OvLg/AI=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=c80Rlt1Lq7pEMg7+Gj6P0nsrPeXxJkNCgTwlH2sEkzFRtYW8Em3BfawXsfd8IGbF+9jJHYnB4DueZvV7VmS1G+yXxgJHfMMEcze/WMLNN6AajjX1MXSaDiCMUbsnKHOaTntOcWzRcsQWsrHANYXt5s7PNWBlcT9Iap4Dai563P0= 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=UemcjZ7j; 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="UemcjZ7j" 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=bRFNEAGI0aekibeSDFr0Rp1D2DibBePt8ql2pp92DS4=; t=1732093182; x=1733302782; b=UemcjZ7jR8/SxTdF75h78lEcsScsawZS02ySMuUOrkLag7j 3WwNVRIiL0/aVulPd58lECTnQwF7Y7+jEEbfuvOWHJPIS1GoP/zuY5rUGMt2pAYpVgx/UaiNj5gj9 RrgK9cBbDH/vylntzjPY6zNObzangltTWOQyxBdO/s6TjRu0m1b7t44slZpfJw6tgsSw50LcBYIcM egXB7ObY4K2PKX/RjIprfE90FWaifDW5x+aC/opE8Wv8rZk0z0TshBIvof6emaQ0yKwW88oWhatQW of/ex4u/kqePDZurUME0fuivcnX/LTqXuD4hZEpTl5GT5MTiccR0Jow3By2TjWWA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tDgYl-00000009eTs-2lW2; Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:59:39 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: fix WARN_ON during CAC cancelling From: Johannes Berg To: Aditya Kumar Singh Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:59:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20241113-mlo_dfs_fix-v1-1-e4326736347b@quicinc.com> <383a616d-50c7-4538-9e94-fc8526405c94@quicinc.com> <6b59e7a5f90b85dfc9146fa2cbdfe56c0a307a3e.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-2.fc40) 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 Tue, 2024-11-19 at 11:23 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: >=20 > --- a/net/mac80211/cfg.c > +++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c > @@ -5046,10 +5046,11 @@ static void ieee80211_del_intf_link(struct wiphy= =20 > *wiphy, > unsigned int link_id) > { > struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata =3D=20 > IEEE80211_WDEV_TO_SUB_IF(wdev); > + u16 new_links =3D wdev->valid_links & ~BIT(link_id); >=20 > lockdep_assert_wiphy(sdata->local->hw.wiphy); >=20 > - ieee80211_vif_set_links(sdata, wdev->valid_links, 0); > + ieee80211_vif_set_links(sdata, new_links, 0); > } Needing this part is sort of clear then, but maybe not entirely obvious? Should probably be accompanied by some documentation updates. > So I will submit this as patch then? Seems reasonable. > > There's necessarily going to be some temporary inconsistency here, I'm > > not sure it matters too much if it isn't very visible? > >=20 >=20 > Any particular case you suspect and want me to test? No, not really. > I'm more inclining towards the first suggestion you gave - clearing the= =20 > bitmap later. What's your suggestion? >=20 Sure. johannes