On 12/04/2013 04:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 16:41 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> According to our original discussion, it seems we agree that I am not
>> the suitable member to finish it, so I suggest you or another members to
>> try.
>
> There's nothing to finish here.
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 16:41 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> According to our original discussion, it seems we agree that I am not
> the suitable member to finish it, so I suggest you or another members to
> try.
There's nothing to finish here. The code is fine. The compiler is wrong,
but we haven't
On 12/04/2013 04:04 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> It is really not urgent, and for keeping quality, it is necessary to
>> spend suitable time resource (e.g 1 hour or more) to make, review and
>> test this kind of patch carefully by oneself.
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> It is really not urgent, and for keeping quality, it is necessary to
> spend suitable time resource (e.g 1 hour or more) to make, review and
> test this kind of patch carefully by oneself.
>
> So could you please help improve it when you
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
It is really not urgent, and for keeping quality, it is necessary to
spend suitable time resource (e.g 1 hour or more) to make, review and
test this kind of patch carefully by oneself.
So could you please help improve it when you have
On 12/04/2013 04:04 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
It is really not urgent, and for keeping quality, it is necessary to
spend suitable time resource (e.g 1 hour or more) to make, review and
test this kind of patch carefully by oneself.
So
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 16:41 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
According to our original discussion, it seems we agree that I am not
the suitable member to finish it, so I suggest you or another members to
try.
There's nothing to finish here. The code is fine. The compiler is wrong,
but we haven't found
On 12/04/2013 04:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 16:41 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
According to our original discussion, it seems we agree that I am not
the suitable member to finish it, so I suggest you or another members to
try.
There's nothing to finish here. The code is
On 12/02/2013 10:48 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 14:38 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
>>
>> Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
>> significant
On 12/02/2013 10:48 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 14:38 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
significant rewrite. Even
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 14:38 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
>
> Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
> significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
> overall
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 14:38 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
overall
On 12/02/2013 06:38 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
>
> Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
> significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
> overall improvement.
>
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
overall improvement.
btw: Chen, I think fall-throughs are fine as long as
On 12/01/2013 05:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 07:48 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> If ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is not performance sensitive (I guess
>> so), we can use some short static functions instead of some code blocks
>> within ieee80211_subif_start_xmit().
>>
>> -
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 07:48 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> If ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is not performance sensitive (I guess
> so), we can use some short static functions instead of some code blocks
> within ieee80211_subif_start_xmit().
>
> - ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is a long function
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 12:39 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> @@ -1777,18 +1777,16 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
> *skb,
> }
> ap_sdata = container_of(sdata->bss, struct
> ieee80211_sub_if_data,
>
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 12:39 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1777,18 +1777,16 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb,
}
ap_sdata = container_of(sdata-bss, struct
ieee80211_sub_if_data,
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 07:48 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
If ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is not performance sensitive (I guess
so), we can use some short static functions instead of some code blocks
within ieee80211_subif_start_xmit().
- ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is a long function (600+
On 12/01/2013 05:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 07:48 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
If ieee80211_subif_start_xmit() is not performance sensitive (I guess
so), we can use some short static functions instead of some code blocks
within ieee80211_subif_start_xmit().
-
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
overall improvement.
btw: Chen, I think fall-throughs are fine as long as
On 12/02/2013 06:38 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 10:35 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
Good try, but no, now ap_sdata isn't even assigned. :)
Right. Oh well. There's no improving this without
significant rewrite. Even then, there may not be much
overall improvement.
btw:
On 12/01/2013 07:48 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 12/01/2013 04:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
- fall-through is obvious (although I did not notice it, originally).
- Check
On 12/01/2013 04:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> - fall-through is obvious (although I did not notice it, originally).
>>>
>>> - Check 'A' again just near by "case A" seems a little
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
> > >>> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
> > >>> - if (sdata->vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
> > >>> - chanctx_conf =
> > >>>
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> >>> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
> >>> - if (sdata->vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
> >>> - chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
> >>> + chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata->vif.chanctx_conf);
>
On 11/30/2013 09:50 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 11/30/2013 08:53 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> @@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t
On 11/30/2013 08:53 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct
sk_buff *skb,
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> >> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> >> @@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct
> >> sk_buff *skb,
> >>break;
> >>/* fall through */
> >>
On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
>> @@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
>> *skb,
>> break;
>> /* fall through */
>> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
>> -if (sdata->vif.type
On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb,
break;
/* fall through */
case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
-if (sdata-vif.type ==
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct
sk_buff *skb,
break;
/* fall through */
case
On 11/30/2013 08:53 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct
sk_buff *skb,
break;
/*
On 11/30/2013 09:50 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 11/30/2013 08:53 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:59 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 11/29/2013 11:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct
sk_buff *skb,
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
- if (sdata-vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
- chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata-vif.chanctx_conf);
+ chanctx_conf = rcu_dereference(sdata-vif.chanctx_conf);
if
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
- if (sdata-vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
- chanctx_conf =
rcu_dereference(sdata-vif.chanctx_conf);
+
On 12/01/2013 04:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
- fall-through is obvious (although I did not notice it, originally).
- Check 'A' again just near by case A seems a little strange.
-
On 12/01/2013 07:48 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 12/01/2013 04:39 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 21:08 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:02 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
- fall-through is obvious (although I did not notice it, originally).
- Check 'A' again just near
> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> @@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
> *skb,
> break;
> /* fall through */
> case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
> - if (sdata->vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
> -
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -1814,8 +1814,9 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb,
break;
/* fall through */
case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
- if (sdata-vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP)
- chanctx_conf
In next-20131122 tree, if "sdata->vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP",
'chanctx_conf' will be not initialized, so need check it. Related
warning (with allmodconfig under hexagon):
CC [M] net/mac80211/tx.o
net/mac80211/tx.c: In function 'ieee80211_subif_start_xmit':
net/mac80211/tx.c:1827:27:
In next-20131122 tree, if sdata-vif.type != NL80211_IFTYPE_AP,
'chanctx_conf' will be not initialized, so need check it. Related
warning (with allmodconfig under hexagon):
CC [M] net/mac80211/tx.o
net/mac80211/tx.c: In function 'ieee80211_subif_start_xmit':
net/mac80211/tx.c:1827:27:
42 matches
Mail list logo
