Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:30:57 +0900 From: Ryota Ozaki <ozak...@netbsd.org>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net> wrote: > (For the record, the issues were spurious reinitialization of > ifp->if_percpuq in if_iwm and if_rtwn causing a memory leak, and a > needless whitespace change in if_otus -- all residual from earlier > drafts.) Allocating ifp->if_percpuq in if_iwm and if_rtwn is correct because if_initialize/if_register don't allocate it. Oops. I sit corrected! > Are there any ieee80211 drivers that already do anything in softint? > At a cursory glance, I don't see any. So the conditional is probably > not necessary No, not yet (except USB drivers). I can remove the conditional (but we have to keep in mind to change there when we change ieee80211 and/or individual Wifi drivers). Sure. > -- and this is an argument for (in a future change) > exposing the callback for if_percpuq so that ieee80211 can do > if_perpcuq_dequeue/ieee80211_input, not if_percpuq_dequeue/if_input, > in a loop. I'm worried we would have to make rxintr of Wifi drivers softint in order to run all bpf hooks in softint because bpf hooks exit before ieee80211_input. If we can move them into ieee80211_input, we don't need such big changes though, I'm not sure yet if we can. It sounds reasonable to me to push ieee80211_input into softint, in a future change. It is not substantially different from ether_input, except we usually call ieee80211_input directly whereas we usually call ether_input via ifp->if_input -- mainly, I suspect, so that it can be replaced by bridge_input.
