On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:57 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 04:16:49PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > > > > Hence, I think we can actually get away without more locking if we > > > > > protect the flags better. Should we use a spinlock or the atomic > > > > > set_bit()/clear_bit()/etc. operations? > > > > > > > > Using the atomic operations seems appropriate to me. > > > > > > Right, but I figured if we could get rid of the AMPDU spinlocks and just > > > use a single one in total (for flags as well) then that'd be of benefit > > > too; even with the dynamic allocation strategy (see other mail) we'd not > > > need to allocate two more spinlocks for ampdu. > > > > Yes, I thought that was behind your question. I'll let Ron comment > > on the AMPDU spinlock usage. > > Ok so the mesh code came with a spinlock too, the AMPDU code has two. > > Ron/Tomas, does the ampdu MLME really need two spinlocks? The problem is that RX a TX BA establishments usually happens concurrently for single STA, those are independent state machines. We have to review this carefully before spinlokcs are removed. Thanks Tomas - 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
