On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 17:00 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Do we even need end_schedule()? It's hard to pass multiple things to a > > single call (do you build a list?), so having > > > > start_schedule(), get_txq(), return_txq() > > > > would be sufficient? > > Well, start_schedule() / end_schedule() would be needed if we are going > to add locking in mac80211? [...] > If we decide mac80211 needs to do locking to prevent two threads from > scheduling the same ac, that would also be needed for the hw-managed > case? Yes, good point. > > It seems like not? Basically it seems to me that in the hw-managed > > case all you need is may_tx()? And in fact, once you opt in you don't > > even really need *that* since mac80211 can just return NULL from > > get_skb()? > > Yeah, we could just throttle in get_skb(); the separate call was to > avoid the overhead of the check for every packet. Typically, you'll pick > a TXQ, then dequeue multiple packets from it in succession; with a > separate call to may_tx(), you only do the check once, not for every > packet... Yeah, also a good point. Still, txq = get_txq(txq) doesn't feel right, so better to keep that separate I think. johannes
