Hi,
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:44 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 18 May 2022 07:59:37 -0400:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:44 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > >
> > > aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 17 May 2022 20:41:41 -0400:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:35 PM Miquel Raynal
> > > > <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the slow path, we need to wait for each command to be processed
> > > > > before continuing so let's introduce an helper which does the
> > > > > transmission and blocks until it gets notified of its asynchronous
> > > > > completion. This helper is going to be used when introducing scan
> > > > > support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > net/mac802154/ieee802154_i.h | 1 +
> > > > > net/mac802154/tx.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/mac802154/ieee802154_i.h b/net/mac802154/ieee802154_i.h
> > > > > index a057827fc48a..b42c6ac789f5 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/mac802154/ieee802154_i.h
> > > > > +++ b/net/mac802154/ieee802154_i.h
> > > > > @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ extern struct ieee802154_mlme_ops mac802154_mlme_wpan;
> > > > > void ieee802154_rx(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb);
> > > > > void ieee802154_xmit_sync_worker(struct work_struct *work);
> > > > > int ieee802154_sync_and_hold_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local);
> > > > > +int ieee802154_mlme_tx_one(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb);
> > > > > netdev_tx_t
> > > > > ieee802154_monitor_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev);
> > > > > netdev_tx_t
> > > > > diff --git a/net/mac802154/tx.c b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > > > > index 38f74b8b6740..6cc4e5c7ba94 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/mac802154/tx.c
> > > > > @@ -128,6 +128,52 @@ int ieee802154_sync_and_hold_queue(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > > > > return ieee802154_sync_queue(local);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int ieee802154_mlme_op_pre(struct ieee802154_local *local)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + return ieee802154_sync_and_hold_queue(local);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int ieee802154_mlme_tx(struct ieee802154_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Avoid possible calls to ->ndo_stop() when we asynchronously perform
> > > > > + * MLME transmissions.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + rtnl_lock();
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Ensure the device was not stopped, otherwise error out */
> > > > > + if (!local->open_count)
> > > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > No -EBUSY here, use ?-ENETDOWN?.
> > >
> > > Isn't it strange to return "Network is down" while we try to stop the
> > > device but fail to do so because, actually, it is still being used?
> > >
> >
> > you are right. Maybe -EPERM, in a sense of whether the netdev state
> > allows it or not.
>
> Actually you were right in your fist review, "!open_count" means
> that the net iface is down, so returning -ENETDOWN is fine, I believe.
>
ah yes, you confused me!
- Alex
