On Tuesday 07 April 2009 21:37:58 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 21:33 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > Well, I suppose you could register with the max and later reduce and > > > stop the remaining queues you're not using... Or not stop them and drop > > > packets on them. That's somewhat fragile, gives people who look at tc a > > > wrong idea, and I can't imagine supporting it, but it should work. > > > > mkay, I'll try this. thanks :) > > > > I wonder, however, will mac80211 try to queue packets on queues that are stopped? > > And I think just dropping them is not an option, because this will cause breakage. > > > > What about just queueing everything on a single queue, no matter what queue mac80211 > > puts the frame into? Would this cause ordering issues? > > Or the other way around, is there anything that _depends_ on the higher priority queues > > to get sent before the higher priority queues? > > mac80211 won't try to select a queue higher than hw->queues at > select_queue time, so it shouldn't try to put packets onto that queue, > look in wme.c. Ok I see. So you say it's OK to lower hw->queues after ieee80211_register. Should I reset hw->queues back to the value ieee80211_register was called with, before I call unregister/free? Are there resources allocated by the number of queues? -- Greetings, Michael. -- 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
