Hi Alex,
> > --- a/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > +++ b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > @@ -106,6 +106,21 @@ ieee802154_tx(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> > }
> >
> > +void ieee802154_hold_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > +{
> > + atomic_inc(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void ieee802154_release_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > +{
> > + atomic_dec(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool ieee802154_queue_is_held(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > +{
> > + return atomic_read(&local->phy->hold_txs);
> > +}
>
> I am not getting this, should the release_queue() function not do
> something like:
>
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(hold_txs))
> ieee802154_wake_queue(local);
>
> I think we don't need the test of "ieee802154_queue_is_held()" here,
> then we need to replace all stop_queue/wake_queue with hold and
> release?
That's actually a good idea. I've implemented it and it looks nice too.
I'll clean this up and share a new version with:
- The wake call checked everytime hold_txs gets decremented
- The removal of the _queue_is_held() helper
- _wake/stop_queue() turned static
- _hold/release_queue() used everywhere
Thanks,
Miquèl
