On 11/22/2019 03:49 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
Hi Ben, Well, for me to consider any of these, you really should come with commit logs and reasons that actually make sense outside of your environment :) I committed a note that replaces patch 1.
Well, 1 out of 10 ain't that bad!
I don't like 2-4, that just adds state and one should never hit it. If you're hitting these you should investigate the root cause, not fix the symptoms. 5 seems like it might be reasonable, but it's hard to read and understand, maybe revisit that?
This is the patch you previously said you liked but it would not apply upstream. Now it applies. That whole code mess is hard to understand, but I have been running a similar patch for a while and it has worked well. Instead of trying to understand the patch, try applying it and then read the resulting code. It is a lot simpler to understand that way I think. You can also sniff air with current code w/out this patch and watch the crappy retry behaviour where the retries are clumped in a few ms of time instead of being spread out.
I tend to think the previous module options along the lines of patch 6 were a mistake, rather than add more ... 7 is totally not understandable, but might be legitimate? Unlikely, but hard to say.
Ath10k will always use legacy rates for ctrl frames and such even if you otherwise restrict the rateset. So, it is legit to set a single rate even if that would leave no legacy rates configured as far as mac80211 is concerned. Your patch broke the ability to set a single rate in ath10k, and my change will allow it to work again.
8 I don't like at all. How about you do it in the driver somehow?
I had low hopes for this one anyway. mac80211 has the software decrypt logic, not the driver, so it seemed reasonable to have the mac80211 do a callback. This patch is likely only useful for drivers that do block-ack in the firmware and support software decrypt, which may only be my modified ath10k-ct driver/firmware.
9 is like 2-4 really, I guess maybe this one I could get behind if it came with a commit log that actually explains why one is likely to hit this multiple times or something?
Basically, it is almost never useful to use WARN_ON instead of WARN_ON_ONCE. If you ever do hit the bug, often the logs are full of WARN_ON spam and you cannot even find the real problem until you change it to WARN_ON_ONCE and reproduce the problem. I hit this problem due to some coding bug while poking at ath10k, and you get one splat per tx frame, so you can image the spam.
10 we did to fix other behaviour, so ...
This one is especially useful for roaming several virtual stations, but maybe that is only useful test case. I included it more as an RFC, but it has worked well enough for us in case you see some worth in it (and obviously it should be changed to not use // comments in case the functionality is actually deemed useful). Thanks, Ben
johannes
-- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
