[PATCH 10/27] wifi: mac80211: isolate driver from inactive links

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:59 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> On 4/18/2023 4:15 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-04-17 at 22:07 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
> > > OK. So I will try to put this in mac80211 layer, is it OK?
> > > 
> > I guess? I'm still not really sure why you even want it, but hey, that's
> > up to you in a way. I really didn't like the suggestion with
> > wiphy_iftype_ext_capab (or any other capability for that matter), it
> > feels like it should be more dynamic, like maybe a new "add link"
> > callback or something? At least then you can't blame mac80211 for when
> > it breaks when you have two 5 GHz links ...
> 
> ok, so I would like to add callback such as
> 
> "add_link(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif vif, struct 
> ieee80211_bss_conf *link_conf, unsigned int link_id)"
> 
> in struct ieee80211_ops, and mac80211 call it in 
> ieee80211_mgd_setup_link()/ieee80211_vif_update_links,
> 
> then lower-drvier could dynamic set the local addr of assoc 
> link_conf(also for 2nd link_conf), is it OK?
> 

Seems OK, but I'm not sure that _works_?

After all, we first set the addresses in assoc_data, when we don't have
a link_conf yet, no? Just what we were discussing in the other thread
about the leak.

johannes