From: Alan Ott <a...@signal11.us> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:59:37 -0400
> On 04/02/2013 09:56 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Alan Ott <a...@signal11.us> >> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:24:59 -0400 >> >>> I like it for a couple of reasons. >>> 1. Most supported devices have only single packet output buffer, so >>> blocking in the driver is the most straight-forward way to handle it. >>> The alternative is to make each driver have a workqueue for xmit() (to >>> lift the blocking out from atomic context). This makes each driver simpler. >>> >>> 2. All of the flow control can be handled one time in the mac802154 layer. >> We have a perfectly working flow control mechanism in the generic >> networking queuing layer. Please use it instead of inventing things. > > I'm pretty sure that's what I'm doing in [1]. When I say "flow control > can be handled," I mean managing calls to netif_stop_queue() and > netif_wake_queue(). Is there something else I should be doing instead? Then you shouldn't need workqueues if the generic netdev facilities can do the flow control properly. There are several ethernet devices that have a single transmit buffer and function just fine, and optimally, solely using the transmit queue stop/start/wake infrastructure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
