> -----Original Message----- > From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 8:29 PM > To: Tony Chuang > Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka; Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Pkshih; Andy Huang; > linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/12] rtw88: hci files > > Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > + } > >> > + > >> > + info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb); > >> > + ieee80211_tx_info_clear_status(info); > >> > + info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_STAT_ACK; > >> > + ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe(hw, skb); > >> > >> Always report ACK ? > > > > The ACK report is for mac80211 stack, it looks abnormal at the first glance. > > But we can only do this for every data frame because there is no ack report > > unless the driver ask the firmware to give one. > > Ask for every data frame is resource consuming. > > I don't remember how mac80211 wants to handle the cases when the > hardware doesn't provide ack status, but lying that to mac80211 sounds > like a bad idea to me. Anyone have any suggestions how this should be > handled? > > At the minimum add a proper comment explaining why you are lying to > mac80211. > > -- > Kalle Valo > If mac80211 wants any specific packet to have a report, it will pass IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS through tx flags (most mlme or something important worth to know if it success). Those packets need extra process for them to get report from firmware. This will be added after the first RFC get accepted. However, I can add a comment to describe this to avoid confusing. Yan-Hsuan Chuang
