On 2011-01-09 12:46 AM, gree...@candelatech.com wrote:
> From: Ben Greear<gree...@candelatech.com>
>
> The system can get into a state where the xmit queue
> is stopped, but there are no packets pending, so
> the queue will not be restarted.
>
> Add logic to the xmit watchdog to attempt to restart
> the xmit logic if this situation is detected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear<gree...@candelatech.com>
> ---
>
> NOTE: This is basically the same as a patch I posted
> a day or two ago. It doesn't address the concern of the
> reviewer who NACK'd it, but my system will not properly
> transmit packets without this patch applied. I realize
> this is a bit of a hack, but until we find and fix all
> of the other bugs, I think this patch or something similar
> should be applied.
>
> Still, this patch should not be applied unless given positive
> ACK by the ath9k developers.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c
> index d9a4144..1b3a62c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c
> @@ -1988,19 +1988,30 @@ static void ath_tx_rc_status(struct ath_buf *bf,
> struct ath_tx_status *ts,
> tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count = ts->ts_longretry + 1;
> }
>
> -static void ath_wake_mac80211_queue(struct ath_softc *sc, int qnum)
> +/* Has no locking. */
> +static void __ath_wake_mac80211_queue(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath_txq
> *txq)
> {
> - struct ath_txq *txq;
> -
> - txq = sc->tx.txq_map[qnum];
> - spin_lock_bh(&txq->axq_lock);
> if (txq->stopped&& txq->pending_frames< ATH_MAX_QDEPTH) {
> - if (ath_mac80211_start_queue(sc, qnum))
> + if (ath_mac80211_start_queue(sc, txq->axq_qnum))
> txq->stopped = 0;
> }
> +}
This part is quite broken, I think you got confused with various types
of queue numbers. txq->axq_qnum refers to the atheros hw queue index,
whereas the qnum argument to this function refers to the mac80211 queue
index (which is also the correct index for sc->tx.txq_map - not to be
confused with the sc->tx.txq array).
Pushing the locking out to the caller side (with a wrapper) does sound
like a good idea though.
- Felix
_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
