Tim Shepard <shep@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 fine with not renaming things for now. Been looking at the current code enough that it doesn't bother me. Oh, and you can hide most of the ieee80211_txq stuff behind macros, so it doesn't have to be all over the code. Makes the patch set smaller too... > 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[*] ), Cool. I started looking into what it will take to do a full conversion (getting rid of the old TX path). Not quite there yet (to say the least), so if you have a less buggy base I can work from that would be cool ;) -Toke -- 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
