On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > This area is a bit confusing, but I don't think WLAN_STA_PS_STA will be
> > clear until after WLAN_STA_PS_DRIVER is?
>
> Hmm, actually looks like we call ps_deliver_wakeup() with WLAN_STA_PS_STA
> flag currently cleared.
>
> tatic void sta_unblock(struct work_struct *wk)
> {
> if (!test_sta_flag(sta, WLAN_STA_PS_STA)) {
> local_bh_disable();
> ieee80211_sta_ps_deliver_wakeup(sta);
> local_bh_enable();
>
> so on TX we should rather check WLAN_STA_PS_DRIVER flag .
But that flag may never be set if the driver doesn't support/use it
(which means it's racy, but anyway), so we need to check both.
Now I'm confused though. It seems the intent here was to clear the
WLAN_STA_PS_STA flag in something like sta_ps_end() in the RX path, but
we don't do that. I'm not sure how it works now, but I know from testing
that it does ;-)
Do you think the v2 patch is fine?
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
