On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 18:21 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > -static int __ieee80211_tx(struct ieee80211_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > +static int __ieee80211_tx(struct ieee80211_local *local,
> > struct ieee80211_tx_data *tx)
> > {
> > + struct sk_buff *skb = tx->skb, *next;
> > struct ieee80211_tx_info *info;
> > - int ret, i;
> > + int ret;
> > + bool fragm = false;
> >
> > - if (skb) {
> > + local->mdev->trans_start = jiffies;
> > +
> > + while (skb) {
> > if (ieee80211_queue_stopped(&local->hw,
> > skb_get_queue_mapping(skb)))
> > return IEEE80211_TX_PENDING;
> >
> > - ret = local->ops->tx(local_to_hw(local), skb);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return IEEE80211_TX_AGAIN;
> > - local->mdev->trans_start = jiffies;
> > - ieee80211_led_tx(local, 1);
> > - }
> I see only one possible regression with this patch and that is that it
> seems you forgot to update the mdev->trans_start in the new loop on
> each fragment.
Well, that was actually intentional. Since none of the code here can
block the time between the various assignments of trans_start would be
_very_ small, and as such the multiple assignments can't really be
necessary.
> As far as I can tell this would only introduce a regression with if
> someone is using a netdev watchdog on the mdev, if we don't care about
> that and I'm not missing any other case where this could be affected
> we might as well remove that first update as at least for mac80211 its
> completely untouched.
netdev watchdog is always running for all netdevs :)
> Other than that:
>
> Reviewed-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for looking!
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
