RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client mode

[David Lin]

> From: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 8:51 AM
> To: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; francesco@xxxxxxxxxx; Pete Hsieh
> <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini
> <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client
> mode
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> > From: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 6:55 AM
> > To: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; francesco@xxxxxxxxxx; Pete Hsieh
> > <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini
> > <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme
> > for client mode
> >
> > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
> > links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using
> > the 'Report this email' button
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:01 PM David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I think it needs time to support probe client. Can we put your
> > > suggested comments to the code used to hook probe_client() and add
> > >
> > > "TODO: support probe client" to mwifiex_cfg80211_probe_client().
> >
> > Are you suggesting that you plan to actually implement proper
> > probe_client support? Did you already do what I suggested, and
> > understand why hostapd needs probe_client support? This seems to be a
> > common pattern -- that reviewers are asking for you to do your
> > research, and it takes several requests before you actually do it.
> >
> > Now that I've tried to do that research for you ... it looks like
> > hostapd uses probe_client to augment TX MGMT acks, as a proxy for
> > station presence / inactivity. If a station is inactive and
> > non-responsive, we disconnect it eventually. So that looks to me like
> > probe_client support should actually be optional, if your driver
> > reports TX status? And in that case, I'd still recommend you try to fix
> hostapd.
> >
> > But if you're really planning to implement proper probe_client
> > support, then I suppose the TODO approach is also OK.
> >
> > I'd also request that you please actually do your research when
> > reviewers ask questions. I'm frankly not sure why I'm spending my time
> > on the above research, when the onus should be on the submitter to
> > explain why they're doing what they're doing.
> >
> > Brian
> 
> Yes. I know when aging time of station is out, hostapd will use probe_client
> to check if station is still there before really disconnect it.
> 
> Without this feature, it won't really affect mayor function of hostapd.
> 
> That is the reason that I suggest that we put comments and TODO to the
> code.
> 
> David

If you agree that this extra check can be optional, maybe I can just put your suggested comments to the code.

David