On 2014-11-19 19:38, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>> /**
>> + * ieee80211_tx_status_noskb - transmit status callback without skb
>> + *
>> + * This function can be used as a replacement for ieee80211_tx_status
>> + * in drivers that cannot reliably map tx status information back to
>> + * specific skbs.
>> + *
>> + * This function may not be called in IRQ context. Calls to this function
>> + * for a single hardware must be synchronized against each other. Calls
>> + * to this function, ieee80211_tx_status_ni() and ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe()
>> + * may not be mixed for a single hardware. Must not run concurrently with
>> + * ieee80211_rx() or ieee80211_rx_ni().
>
> None of that seems very likely. Did you just copy/paste it? :)
Yes, I copy/pasted it. I wasn't sure if these requirements would be
necessary for the no-skb status as well, just figured it'd be safe to
leave them in.
>> +static inline void
>> +rate_control_tx_status_noskb(struct ieee80211_local *local,
>> + struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband,
>> + struct sta_info *sta,
>> + struct ieee80211_tx_info *info)
>> +{
>> + struct rate_control_ref *ref = local->rate_ctrl;
>> + struct ieee80211_sta *ista = &sta->sta;
>> + void *priv_sta = sta->rate_ctrl_priv;
>> +
>> + if (!ref || !test_sta_flag(sta, WLAN_STA_RATE_CONTROL))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + ref->ops->tx_status_noskb(ref->priv, sband, ista, priv_sta, info);
>> +}
>
> Oh, so you're adding another one ... I guess I understand better now.
>
>> +
>> +
>
> two blank lines?
Will fix that.
>> -static void ieee80211_lost_packet(struct sta_info *sta, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> +static void ieee80211_lost_packet(struct sta_info *sta,
>> + struct ieee80211_tx_info *info)
>> {
>> - struct ieee80211_tx_info *info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb);
>> -
>
> some of this refactoring might better be in a separate patch.
>
>> /* This packet was aggregated but doesn't carry status info */
>> if ((info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_AMPDU) &&
>> !(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_STAT_AMPDU))
>> @@ -571,24 +570,13 @@ static void ieee80211_lost_packet(struct sta_info *sta, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> sta->lost_packets = 0;
>> }
>>
>> -void ieee80211_tx_status(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> +static int ieee80211_tx_get_rates(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>> + struct ieee80211_tx_info *info,
>> + int *retry_count)
>> {
>> - struct sk_buff *skb2;
>> - struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr = (struct ieee80211_hdr *) skb->data;
>> - struct ieee80211_local *local = hw_to_local(hw);
>> - struct ieee80211_tx_info *info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb);
>> - __le16 fc;
>> - struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband;
>> - struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata;
>> - struct net_device *prev_dev = NULL;
>> - struct sta_info *sta, *tmp;
>> - int retry_count = -1, i;
>> int rates_idx = -1;
>> - bool send_to_cooked;
>> - bool acked;
>> - struct ieee80211_bar *bar;
>> - int rtap_len;
>> - int shift = 0;
>> + int count = -1;
>> + int i;
>
> ditto - too big for here.
OK.
>> + acked = !!(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_STAT_ACK);
>> + if (pubsta) {
>> + struct sta_info *sta;
>> +
>> + sta = container_of(pubsta, struct sta_info, sta);
>> +
>> + if (info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_STATUS_EOSP)
>> + clear_sta_flag(sta, WLAN_STA_SP);
>
> That doesn't seem reasonable really - if you're reporting out of band
> then don't report it as TX status but rather with the eosp() call.
OK.
- Felix
--
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
