On 7 May 2014 12:16, Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 12:02 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: >> On 7 May 2014 11:40, Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Hmm.. I assume all chanctx calls would be subject to the transaction >> API, i.e. add_chanctx/remove_chanctx/switch_vif_chanctx/change_chanctx. >> Then all calls except begin/commit would return void - I guess this >> could make handling errors a little saner. >> >> Another approach would be to merge all separate chanctx ops into a >> single one. This would have the benefit of providing driver all >> information in one place and possibly making it easier to handle >> errors internally (due to single function flow instead of having stuff >> all over the place). But I imagine this could become a little >> ambiguous in some parameter combinations. Any thoughts? > > I think the latter is a better option. Instead of having multiple calls > and requiring the driver to save all the new information until it's > committed (as would be the case with the first approach), the driver > would have all the information it needs at once. > > Maybe you could have a single function call with an array of > transactions? Hmm.. I was actually thinking of just providing the bare minimum to fulfill requirements for the CSA case: int foo(*hw, **vifs, n_vifs, *oldctx, *newctx, flags). Having an array of transactions passed through a single call seems more robust and cleaner. Naiive drivers might just iterate over each entry while more complex drivers might examine the whole request and detect chanctx swapping. Michał -- 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
