On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 13:19 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 13:09, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 12:38 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by "detect chanctx swapping" - the flags would
> > indicate that anyway, no? In any case, I like this better than a more
> > general transaction API I think, it's easier for the driver
> > implementation and clearer as to what needs to be done/supported.
>
> You could submit a transaction sequence:
> - new chanctx2
> - switch vif1 chanctx1->chanctx2
> - switch vif2 chanctx1->chanctx2
> - remove chanctx1
Well, you don't really have any other choice with the API you proposed,
and IMHO that's a good thing. The only possibilities that can be
expressed with that would seem to be:
1) for_each_vif: switch vif from oldctx to newctx
2) add newctx
for_each_vif: switch vif from oldctx to newctx
del oldctx
With the option between 1/2 being selected by the flags. I don't see
what the driver has to infer about it being a channel switch - it
necessarily is one, no?
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
