On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 08:05 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > Hmm... Now that I think about the atomic swap - it actually becomes a > little bit of an issue in some cases. > > For one you might need to overcommit number of chanctx since swapping > requires both chanctx (old and new) to exist but that's the least of > the eproblem. If you have more than one interface you end up with > temporarily breaking interface combinations from driver point of view > while switching (first swap breaks it, last swap fixes it). Driver > won't know whether given swap is first/last unless we somehow pass it > through the switch_vif_chanctx(). IOW we actually need a "chanctx > transaction" (sort of a start-stop) that can batch up a couple of > chanctx switches for different vifs as an atomic op. Hmmm. Don't you already have that problem? Or you don't because you'd do for_each_affected_vif: unassign del chanctx [optional depending on reservation] add chanctx [ditto] for_each_affected_vif: assign right now? I suppose a sort of transaction API, if designed the right way, would also work somehow - Luca? 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
