> Well, the TXQ already adds a lot of other overhead (hashing on the
> packet header, for one), so my guess would be that this would be
> negligible compared to all that?
>
> >
> > I suppose I don't have to care all that much about the TXQs, but
> > ...
> >
> > Then again, adding a field in
Johannes Berg writes:
>> +static int invoke_tx_handlers_late(struct ieee80211_tx_data *tx);
>> +static bool ieee80211_xmit_fast_finish(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>> + struct sta_info *sta, u8 pn_offs,
>> +
> +static int invoke_tx_handlers_late(struct ieee80211_tx_data *tx);
> +static bool ieee80211_xmit_fast_finish(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> + struct sta_info *sta, u8 pn_offs,
> + struct ieee80211_key_conf *key_conf,
On 2016-09-06 13:44, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> The TXQ intermediate queues can cause packet reordering when more than
> one flow is active to a single station. Since some of the wifi-specific
> packet handling (notably sequence number and encryption handling) is
> sensitive to re-ordering,