> On 31. Aug 2022, at 16:22, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry I dropped out of the thread - busy with other stuff. I'll reply to > other mails later. > >> I am working on the hwsim support right now, tpc support in hwsim’s >> control path is implemented. >> However I encountered a problem in the status path. Hwsim seems to >> hand over to mac80211 >> tx-status asynchronously via ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe only. There, >> the skb is added to >> ieee80211_local->skb_queue and then dequeued in >> ‘ieee80211_tasklet_handler’ to be passed >> to ‘ieee80211_tx_status’. For tx rates this is sufficient, but there >> is no space left in >> ieee80211_tx_info->status to pass the tx-power per packet. >> Please correct me if I missed something in the code. >> >> My idea to solve this may be: to use the SKB extension (struct skb_ext >> *extensions) to pass the >> tx-power information (and maybe more) for each SKB. Could this be an >> appropriate approach or >> do I miss something here? Maybe someone who is much more aware of the >> mac80211 layer >> design does have a better idea for this? > > Is it even an issue to switch to ieee80211_tx_status_ext()? The context > here looks OK, although it might lead to (too?) deep call stacks. > > I don't like the _irqsafe() versions anyway … > > johannes I am not sure about this _irqsafe() thing, just assumed there is/was a reason they are used instead of the normal ones. Would definitely be the easier option to have ieee80211_tx_status_ext() for this RFC and future extensions. I could have a closer look into this, or someone else knows if this could cause an issue. Same for call stack depth. Greetings Jonas
