On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:40 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > Then > > again what even sets vif->txq? Shouldn't those be per-AC? Do you really > > want to mix 'normal' and txq-TX? > Are we even using multiple ACs for packets that don't belong to a > particular sta? I thought normal mcast data frames only use non-QoS > frames. And yes, I'm currently mixing normal and txq-TX to prioritize > ctl/mgmt frames over other less important traffic.
Management (and maybe control) frames can have different priorities as well, this is only used for something with TDLS now I think though. > > You might consider doing locking differently here - I think you probably > > don't need the txq->queue spinlock at all since you're in per-AC and > > mappings are static. Not sure how that interacts with other parts of the > > code though. > I wanted to use the lock to give the driver the freedom to call > ieee80211_tx_dequeue from outside of normal per-AC tx context. Ok. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
