On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:09:38PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > I don't think there are large pending changes, but there were large > changes in the way channels are registered, tx control works etc. OK. > You should probably use the _irqsafe versions of rx and txstatus too. Hmm.. That was interesting.. Changing txstatus to use _irqsafe is was fine, but changing ieee80211_rx to ieee80211_rx_irqsafe triggers something bad.. Loadavg jumps sky high the moment I kill hostapd and ksoftirqd/0 and rmmod (which I ran after killing hostapd) are taking all CPU.. I can hardly type a command at that point. Looks like something goes horribly wrong with the extra queuing with ieee80211_rx_irqsafe. Maybe sending something to a netdev that is down ends up in a busy loop with a frame or something. In other words, I did not change to use _irqsafe yet, but will do once I have more time to figure out what on earth is going on here. > > Yes, I've been thinking of something similar, too. I'll add a netdev > > that gets all frames with radiotap header. > > Maybe it could support injection on that too, so you can test against a > userspace agent. Yes, I added the global radiotap monitor to hwsim (ifname=hwsim#) and left the hard_xmit function empty with a TODO comment.. The netdev from outside mac80211 is quite useful since it can be set up before any of the mac80211 netdevs and it is possible to capture all frames from the beginning.. If needed, we could add some more flags to the radiotap header for indicating what was done with the frame, but that is something that can easily be added later. > The design I had come up with a long time ago allowed userspace to > control each radio by having each _radio_ have a raw netdev like this > and not doing forwarding in the kernel but relying on some userspace > tool, but I guess that much more complicated. That might be useful for some of the tests. I was interested in adding some kind of interface to make it easy to design test cases from user space, but the current code was so simple that I did not want to make it any more complex in the first version. Anyway, it might make sense to provide option mechanism to allow more user space control since I'm also interested in things like testing rate control with a programmable signal strength/channel quality and I do not really want to see the controller for that simulation in the kernel.. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA -- 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
