On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 11:22 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > We're also working on adding a TXQ for (bufferable) management packets > > - I wonder how that should interact here? Always be scheduled first? > > Ah, cool! It may be that it should be given priority, yeah. Presently, > the multicast queue just rotates in the RR with the others, but is never > throttled as it doesn't have an airtime measure (though perhaps it > should)? But that might not be desirable for management frames, as > presumable those need to go out as fast as possible? Good question. I guess the multicast should have an airtime measure, but I don't think we want to do accounting on the management. That really should be few frames, and we want them out ASAP in most cases. > Hmm, I seem to recall thinking about just putting the call to > schedule_txq() into drv_wake_tx_queue; don't remember why I ended up > dropping that; but will take another look at whether it makes sense to > combine things. I was thinking the other way around - but that doesn't work since you'd loop from the driver to itself. This way might work, I guess, hadn't considered that. Might be better anyway though to make a new inline that does both, since the drv_() calls usually really don't do much on their own (other than checks, and in one case backward compatibility code, but still) johannes
