On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 15:33 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: > On 27 January 2016 at 15:26, Johannes Berg <[email protected] > > wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 15:26 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: > > > > > > @@ -1294,6 +1298,8 @@ struct sk_buff *ieee80211_tx_dequeue(struct > > > ieee80211_hw *hw, > > > if (!skb) > > > goto out; > > > > > > + txqi->byte_cnt -= skb->len; > > > + > > > atomic_dec(&sdata->txqs_len[ac]); > > > > > This *looks* a bit worrying - you have an atomic dec for the # of > > packets and a non-atomic one for the bytes. > > > > You probably thought about it and I guess it's fine, but can you > > explain it? > > The atomic was used because it accesses per-vif counters. You can't > use txqi->queue.lock for that. >
Ah. I completely missed that distinction, thanks. 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
