On 03/18/2010 06:35 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I pasted the first version of the patch where I missed to unlock the
> spinlock in the ieee80211_tx().
> This is the last version of the patch.
Probably not.
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi83@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h
> +++ b/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h
> @@ -708,6 +708,8 @@
> struct work_struct sta_finish_work;
> int sta_generation;
>
> + /* Pending buffer dimension */
> + #define PENDING_BUF 512
> struct sk_buff_head pending[IEEE80211_MAX_QUEUES];
> struct tasklet_struct tx_pending_tasklet;
>
> --- a/net/mac80211/tx.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> @@ -1449,14 +1449,18 @@
> skb = tx.skb;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&local->queue_stop_reason_lock, flags);
> -
> +
The new line here has trailing white space. I wondered why you were changing one
blank line for another. You should use scripts/checkpatch to verify your patch.
That script would have caught this.
> if (local->queue_stop_reasons[queue] ||
> !skb_queue_empty(&local->pending[queue])) {
> /*
> - * if queue is stopped, queue up frames for later
> - * transmission from the tasklet
> + * if queue is stopped and there is enough space in the queue,
> + * queue up frames for later transmission from the tasklet
> */
> - do {
> + if (skb_queue_len(&local->pending[queue]) >= PENDING_BUF) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local->queue_stop_reason_lock,
> + flags);
> + goto drop;
> + } do {
> next = skb->next;
> skb->next = NULL;
> if (unlikely(txpending))
> @@ -2074,8 +2078,12 @@
> flags);
>
> txok = ieee80211_tx_pending_skb(local, skb);
> - if (!txok)
> - __skb_queue_head(&local->pending[i], skb);
> + if (!txok) {
> + if (skb_queue_len(&local->pending[i]) < PENDING_BUF)
> + __skb_queue_head(&local->pending[i], skb);
> + else
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + }
> spin_lock_irqsave(&local->queue_stop_reason_lock,
> flags);
> if (!txok)
> --- a/net/mac80211/util.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/util.c
> @@ -383,7 +383,10 @@
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&local->queue_stop_reason_lock, flags);
> __ieee80211_stop_queue(hw, queue, IEEE80211_QUEUE_STOP_REASON_SKB_ADD);
> - __skb_queue_tail(&local->pending[queue], skb);
> + if (skb_queue_len(&local->pending[queue]) < PENDING_BUF)
> + __skb_queue_tail(&local->pending[queue], skb);
> + else
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> __ieee80211_wake_queue(hw, queue, IEEE80211_QUEUE_STOP_REASON_SKB_ADD);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local->queue_stop_reason_lock, flags);
> }
> @@ -409,9 +412,12 @@
> continue;
> }
>
> - ret++;
> queue = skb_get_queue_mapping(skb);
> - __skb_queue_tail(&local->pending[queue], skb);
> + if (skb_queue_len(&local->pending[queue]) < PENDING_BUF) {
> + ret++;
> + __skb_queue_tail(&local->pending[queue], skb);
> + } else
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < hw->queues; i++)
John Linville's efforts as the wireless maintainer are made easier when everyone
follows the guidelines in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. For instance, this
patch should have been submitted with the subject "[PATCH V2] mac80211: Revise
pending queue depth in ieee80211_local data structure", or some such title. At
the beginning of the submission, you should describe the problem following the
guidelines mentioned above. This section is followed by the "Signed-off-by:"
line with a line consisting of "---". Everything above this line becomes part of
the official record if/when the patch is accepted. In this case, the quoting of
previous emails and the inclusion of the previous patch is inappropriate. Below
the ---, you can include additional information such as how this version differs
from previous submissions, and any instructions to John.
I have not reviewed the content of this patch - only the problem with the white
space caught my eye.
Larry
--
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
