On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > huh? Why an mbuf? Is dma_alloc not a better choice?
The mbuf pointer already exists to keep track of packets on the otheor Tx queues. I guess that's why iwn (where this came from) does it this way. I don't mind changing to dma_alloc. I just wanted to fix this in a non-intrusive way (in terms of lines of diff) and move on... If we change this, I think we should consider moving firmware commands off the Tx queues entirely. We're just sending one command at a time anyway.
