On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 10:07 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? Yeah, I think this is a good idea. If we have an atomic transaction API towards the driver, we can solve the problems of switching several vifs at once. -- Luca. -- 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
