A quick test indicates it works but the removal is still an issue. We also
have to make lockdep happy -- one more complaint (even with your v3
patch). I have another patch I'm going to test now which tries to
address removal correctly. It doesn't seem we ever del_timer()'d the
addba_resp_timer in a addition to other cleanups.
I'll condense the relevant sections of your reply.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 01:18:46PM -0700, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
Note declrations:
> > +void initiate_aggr_and_timer(struct sta_info *sta, u16 tid, u16 start_seq_num);
> > +int __ieee80211_start_tx_ba_session(struct ieee80211_local *local,
> > + struct sta_info *sta, u16 tid, u16 *start_seq_num);
Note parts of the routine that use start_seq_num:
> > +void initiate_aggr_and_timer(struct sta_info *sta, u16 tid,
> > + u16 start_seq_num)
> > +{
<-- foo -->
> > + sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_tx[tid]->ssn = start_seq_num;
<-- bar -->
> > +}
Note the pointer on u16 *start_seq_num:
> > +int __ieee80211_start_tx_ba_session(struct ieee80211_local *local,
> > + struct sta_info *sta, u16 tid, u16 *start_seq_num)
> > {
<-- foo -->
> > if (local->ops->ampdu_action)
> > - ret = local->ops->ampdu_action(hw, IEEE80211_AMPDU_TX_START,
> > - ra, tid, &start_seq_num);
> > + ret = local->ops->ampdu_action(local_to_hw(local),
> > + IEEE80211_AMPDU_TX_START,
> > + sta->addr, tid, start_seq_num);
> Doesn't look good, we need to get the sequence number from the driver
> Tomas
We use u16 *start_seq_num, so yes, we are retrieving it from the driver
here.
> > +static void __ieee80211_run_ba_session(struct ieee80211_local *local)
> > +{
> > + struct sta_info *sta, *sta_tmp;
> > + u8 *state;
> > + u16 start_seq_num = 0;
> > + int tid, r = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_RTNL();
> > +
> > + spin_lock_bh(&local->sta_ba_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(sta, sta_tmp,
> > + &local->sta_ba_session_list, ba_list) {
> > + list_del(&sta->ba_list);
> > + spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> > + for (tid = 0; tid < STA_TID_NUM; tid++) {
> > + state = &sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_state_tx[tid];
> > + r = -EINVAL;
> > + if (*state & HT_AGG_START_PEND_REQ) {
> > + *state &= ~HT_AGG_START_PEND_REQ;
> > + r = __ieee80211_start_tx_ba_session(local,
> > + sta, tid, &start_seq_num);
> > + }
> > + if (!r)
> > + initiate_aggr_and_timer(sta, tid, start_seq_num);
> This is rather a strange name for a function,
Yeah, got a better idea? I had originally called it foo_aggr(), I think
this is a little better.
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> Don't think you can hold this lock across the whole loop
I was wondering about that too, but don't see why not, your v3 patch
changed the order in which this locking was done. I'm moving it back to
how it was so the local->ops->ampdu_action now runder the same lock too.
I don't think it was locking before under the code which is now
under initiate_aggr_and_timer() though.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
