Nothing about this patch, I'm fine with it, but a comment for future use
cases of this where we'll need some changes.
> @@ -1284,15 +1442,26 @@ static int ieee80211_tx(struct net_devic
> return 0;
> }
>
> - __ieee80211_tx_prepare(&tx, skb, dev, control);
> + res_prepare = __ieee80211_tx_prepare(&tx, skb, dev, control);
> +
> + if (res_prepare == TXRX_DROP) {
> + dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> sta = tx.sta;
> tx.u.tx.mgmt_interface = mgmt;
> tx.u.tx.mode = local->hw.conf.mode;
>
> - for (handler = local->tx_handlers; *handler != NULL; handler++) {
> - res = (*handler)(&tx);
> - if (res != TXRX_CONTINUE)
> - break;
> + if (res_prepare == TXRX_QUEUED) { /* if it was an injected packet */
> + res = TXRX_CONTINUE;
> + } else {
> + for (handler = local->tx_handlers; *handler != NULL;
> + handler++) {
> + res = (*handler)(&tx);
> + if (res != TXRX_CONTINUE)
> + break;
> + }
I think I mentioned it before; we'll have to split up TX handlers here
to get proper sequence numbering for devices that do it in software,
otherwise we won't be able to send packets with the right sequence
number on such devices.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
