On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 21:19 -0700, Igor Mitsyanko wrote: > > - struct ieee80211_txq *txq[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS]; > > + struct ieee80211_txq *txq[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1]; > > Isn't that a little confusing? Wouldn't it be better to have a > separate member for non-data txq and name it accordingly (something > like txq_nodata). We do this trick in quite a number of places, so it shouldn't really come as a surprise. > You have to handle it specially in most cases anyway I guess. > With this approach you won't have to replace ARRAY_SIZE(sta->txq) by > IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS anywhere. Yeah, that would indeed be a good reason - I didn't realize the ARRAY_SIZE() when I originally wrote the patch. And yes, I do need to treat it specially - except then if it's separate I also have to initialize it separately, so it's a bit of a trade-off. > [snip] [please trim the amount of text you quote] > > - txqi->txq.ac = ieee80211_ac_from_tid(tid); > > + if (tid == IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1) > > + txqi->txq.ac = IEEE80211_AC_VO; > > Why voice, maybe commit message should mention it? That's standard for management frames, I really didn't think that'd need any comment? johannes
