Hi Alex, Once I can get a stable system I'll take another look at this driver. - Martin. On 08/05/15 10:51, Alexander Aring wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 11:40:52AM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:57:10AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote: >>> fakelb_hw_deliver creates a copy of the skb's header which can >>> potentially return NULL so we now check for this before actually >>> delivering to the 802.15.4 MAC layer. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Martin Townsend <martin.townsend@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> I hope that's the correct patch now. >> >> While reviewing I detect some issues. The ToDo's of fakelb driver are: >> >> - renaming the somewhat misnamed driver "fakelb"? I would ack that, but >> this isn't well to do that, but fakelb can be everything and what I >> think it's somewhat like "fakel(oop)b(ack)", but we faking wpan >> phy's with this driver. >> >> - use xmit_async instead xmit_sync. That should be easily, there are >> no issues which the driver is using and can't run in the xmit_async >> context. >> >> - add channel and page match into delivering. Currently there is >> channel only and to be correct it need to be channel AND page. >> A phy which has different page and the same channel can't transmit to >> each other. Other modulation/frequency. >> >> - What I suggest how this driver is working is: >> - Load the driver -> one phy will be generated >> - Over sysfs you can add more phy's >> - Then you have several virtual phy's. >> >> When one virtual PHY transmit a frame then all other EXCEPT the phy >> which transmitted the frame will delivering the frame when page and >> channel matches. >> >> But the current situation is more funny. When one phy is there then >> the same phy which transmit the frame also recevie the same frame. >> When more phy's are there then all phy's also the phy which >> transmitted the frame receive the frame. This is a wrong behaviour >> which makes no sense, it should be easily to add a check on the own >> phy when delivering the frame to all other virtual frames EXCEPT the >> own one. >> >> - I think the spinlock is necessary only for channel/page setting callback >> and while check on other channels/pages in delivering. >> > grml, no. I think the complete locking mechanism can be better when we > have some list with "working phy's". Means phy's which are in state "started" > right now. When "stop" is called then the phy should be removed from > this list. Something like that... While accessing any of these listed > phy's there need some locking mechanism. > > - Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
