Alan Ott wrote:
> 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.
It does make following the program flow a little easier, but
the difference isn't all that large if you think of it,
particularly if you have to wait not only for I/O to finish
but also for the device to send the packet.
The latter will usually be signaled by some form of interrupt,
so you're already in a situation where a callback to the higher
layers of the stack would be very natural.
> Maybe at some point this will be done. Right now we have a ton of
> pressing issues (in my opinion).
Agreed on having no shortage of nasty issues :-) And I'd like
to echo Dave's comment regarding netdev. Those ieee802154_dev
always struck me as peculiar, with flow control just being one
issue.
And things get worse when you have a complex bus underneath
your driver. For example, my USB-using atusb driver (*) has to
do a great many things usbnet already does. And any other
USB-based WPAN driver would be more or less in the same boat.
Of course, one could reinvent that wheel as well and make a
usbwpan, but ... :)
(*) Sneak preview, still with a number of issues, not only style:
https://github.com/wpwrak/ben-wpan-linux/blob/master/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
- Werner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
