Yibo Zhao <yiboz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > In a loop txqs dequeue scenario, if the first txq in the rbtree gets > removed from rbtree immediately in the ieee80211_return_txq(), the > loop will break soon in the ieee80211_next_txq() due to schedule_pos > not leading to the second txq in the rbtree. Thus, defering the > removal right before the end of this schedule round. Didn't we agree that we could fix this by making __unschedule_txq() aware of schedule_pos instead of this deferred removal mechanism? -Toke
