On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 22:05 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
> It seems very important to a lot of people...
I get blinking, I guess, but I don't get toggling for every packet :)
The throughput thing we did in iwlwifi seems like a so much better
idea. Not that it really matters for this
On Wed 17 May 06:14 PDT 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 13:13 +, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >
> > > > This code intentionally checked if TX status was requested, and
> > > > if not then it doesn't go to the effort of building it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What I'm finding puzzling is
On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 13:13 +, Kalle Valo wrote:
>
> > > This code intentionally checked if TX status was requested, and
> > > if not then it doesn't go to the effort of building it.
> > >
> >
> > What I'm finding puzzling is the fact that the only caller of
> > ieee80211_led_tx() is
Bjorn Andersson writes:
> On Thu 27 Apr 01:22 PDT 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>>
>> > @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void reap_tx_dxes(struct wcn36xx *wcn,
>> > struct wcn36xx_dxe_ch *ch)
>> > info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(ctl->skb);
>> >
On Thu 27 Apr 01:22 PDT 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void reap_tx_dxes(struct wcn36xx *wcn,
> > struct wcn36xx_dxe_ch *ch)
> > info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(ctl->skb);
> > if (!(info->flags &
> > IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS)) {
> @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void reap_tx_dxes(struct wcn36xx *wcn,
> struct wcn36xx_dxe_ch *ch)
> info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(ctl->skb);
> if (!(info->flags &
> IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS)) {
> /* Keep frame until TX
As the tx skbs are collected they should be passed to
ieee80211_tx_status() rather than ieee80211_free_txskb(), as the prior
will take care of monitoring and LED triggers while the latter will
consider the skb dropped.
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson
---