On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:47 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > Johannes: I have a couple of comments/questions for you related to these > patches. > > First, in the patches I've added an offchan_tx_ok argument to the tx > operations, but this seems a little awkward to me since it has to be > propogated down through a fairly deep call stack. The alternative idea > that occurred to me is to use a tx control flag, but that seems to be > pretty crowded. Any thoughts? Maybe you can bypass by using a flag in struct ieee80211_tx_data, so only the first few functions in the call chain need the argument? Otherwise, I guess adding a flag should be OK. I know it's crowded, but if we really run out I guess we could move all the internal flags etc. wholesale ... > Second, I attempted to test these patches with iwlwifi (Centrino > Advanced-N 6235) to verify that I didn't break anything for drivers with > hw scanning. My standard test for this involves running iperf while > triggering nearly continuous scans, but I'm seeing lots of problems > running a tcp iperf test even with unpatched 3.8-rc4. iperf with udp > does fine in either direction. I haven't had time to do any kind of > debugging yet, but I thought you'd want to know. Hm, ok, thanks. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
