On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > + if (rt2800usb_txstatus_pending(rt2x00dev) && > > > > + test_and_set_bit(TX_STATUS_READING, &rt2x00dev->flags)) > > > > > > I would put a bang before that test_and... > > I don't understand what you mean, perhaps you could post a patch > > or provide code snipset here, so I could comment. > > If I understand correctly, status should be read again if there are > pending entries and no one else has set TX_STATUS_READING yet. In that > case return value of test_and_set_bit should be negated. I might be > missing something though. You are correct, this is another good catch! Fix is on the go. > > I do not understand your objection here too. If rt2800usb_txstatus_pending() > > will return true and if TX_STATUS_READING bit is not set, we will run hrtimer > > to read status after 500 micro seconds. We exit the loop if kfifo is empty > > and no entry timed out waiting to get corresponding TX status. > > Yes, I don't mean that this code is wrong. I just think that > rt2800usb_async_read_tx_status have no chance of actually going past > TX_STATUS_READING check. If every dma_done schedules reading and > reading stops only when all pending entries have their statuses then > call to rt2800usb_async_read_tx_status after we processed statuses is > excessive. > > All that said, I haven't tested this hypothesis and may be completely > wrong (again). Also I _don't_ mean that this call should be removed, > just wanted to me sure I understand everything correctly ;-) I think you have right. I'll review that carefully and remove those lines if they are useless. Thanks Stanislaw -- 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
