On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 14:32 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > 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... The problem isn't so much how we handle it in mac80211 for the queueing, but how we deal with things like A-MSDU and how we present it to the driver ... for iwlwifi at least we'd really like to have only data frames so we can map it directly to the hardware queue ... johannes
