Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 13:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 13:40 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> > >> > Guess we'll have to deal with everything else if we ever move management >> > frames onto the TXQ path as well... >> >> Depends on whether we care for management frame priorities or not ... so >> far we haven't really. > > Actually, for the most part we have implemented that properly. Except > for the TXQ I added for bufferable management ... oh well, I think we're > the only user thereof now. > > I'm not sure we want to have a TXQ per TID for management, that seems > overkill. But I'm also not sure how to solve this otherwise ... Graft it to an existing TXQ, similar to how the fragments queue is used now? Saves a TXQ at the expense of having to special-case it... -Toke
