Stefan Sperling wrote: > 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.
oh, ok. it look like the short command path wasn't using an mbuf, but i got that impression only from looking at the diff. maybe wrong.
