On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:08:36PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > 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 ... > > Ok no that was wrong ... we can't do that because many flags need to > survive queueing. An ieee80211_tx_data flag would work for this case, though it doesn't quite have the effect I was hoping for since it really only gets rid of the argument internal to tx.c. I avoided most of the pain by leaving ieee80211_tx_skb() unmodified, but it all still seems a bit ugly. If you're okay with the way I've got things now I'll just stick with it. I hate to gobble up valuable real estate in the tx control flags just to satisfy my sense of aesthetics ;-) Seth -- 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
