Hi,
(quoting repaired)
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:36:27PM +0100, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2010 6:01 PM, "Helmut Schaa" <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 16 November 2010 schrieb Johannes Stezenbach:
> >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:42:08PM +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Right. We could of course add a mac80211-queue <-> rt2x00-queue mapping in
> >> > the appropriate places or rename the QID_* identifiers accordingly. Not sure
> >> > if it's worth it ...
> >>
> >> Hm, reducing confusion enhances maintainability.
> >
> > I fully agree. I just meant that there are more severe issues in rt2x00 I plan
> > to work on. But feel free to send a patch :)
>
> But is this a mapping problem, or naming problem? Queue 0 is supposed to be
> the queue with highest priority right?
> So that would inficate a naming problem only
The main source of confusion for me is the implicit conversion
between the queue number 0..3 used by the mac80211 layer
and the enum data_queue_qid used by rt2x00, which assignes a
different _meaning_ to the numbers. IMHO the enum values
should be rearranged. Maybe a comment would be good, too.
And I'm still confused. There is code like e.g.
rt2400pci_kick_tx_queue() which tests against QID_AC_BE etc.,
but does it really the kick the right queue?
IOW, where does the qid passed to it ultimately come from?
rt2x00mac_tx(): qid = skb_get_queue_mapping(skb); i.e. 2 for AC_BE
-> rt2x00queue_get_queue() returns queue #2 which has queue->qid == QID_AC_VI
-> rt2x00queue_write_tx_frame()
-> rt2400pci_kick_tx_queue() is called with qid == QID_AC_VI
Bug?
Thanks
Johannes
--
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
