> I think we should finish intermediate queues support first and then look > into the rename later. Hmm... if the renaming is going to go in mainline, I feel pretty strongly it should go in *before* a patch to switch over to use the intermediate queues. The whole point of the renaming was to make the code that uses the intermediate queues much more understandable (avoiding the unfortuante collision of "txq" meaning two different things throughout the code). Once it is all done and everyone's done reading and trying to understand this code, there's much less reason to do the renaming. Toke, how do you feel about this at this point? I'm asking because I hope to have a new version of my patch soon (fixing a bug in how it handles tid->hwq->pending_frames and hq_max_pending[*] ), and I need to decide whether I should do it the way I did last time (with the renaming txq in ath9k first) or produce a new patch that is more like Toke's reworking of my patch. Hmm... -Tim Shepard shep@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
