On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 09:09 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. I changed my mind on changing this, the allocation, initialization and teardown etc. just gets much more complicated with doing that, needing special cases in quite a number of places. johannes
