Johannes Berg <johan...@sipsolutions.net> writes: > On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 11:56 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> > So basically this gets rid of a corner case that we shouldn't have. >> > Either we should decide that using different TXQs is *always* correct >> > for non-QoS, or - what I thought - that this isn't worth it, and then we >> > should *never* do it. >> >> Yeah, I agree that this is not worth it. The queue is already >> FQ-CoDel'ed, which gives us most of the benefit of QoS anyway :) > > So do I read that as a tentative ack? :)
Yeah, guess so :) > Felix wasn't really convinced, I think. He also pointed out some drivers > use skb->priority without checking anything, but I'm not sure we can > really squash all the cases of setting skb priority easily? ~/build/linux/drivers/net/wireless $ git grep 'skb->priority = ' ath/ath9k/channel.c: skb->priority = 7; broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c: skb->priority = cfg80211_classify8021d(skb, NULL); broadcom/brcm80211/brcmutil/utils.c: skb->priority = 0; intel/ipw2x00/libipw_tx.c: skb->priority = libipw_classify(skb); marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c: skb->priority = LOW_PRIO_TID; marvell/mwifiex/main.c: skb->priority = cfg80211_classify8021d(skb, NULL); marvell/mwifiex/tdls.c: skb->priority = MWIFIEX_PRIO_BK; marvell/mwifiex/tdls.c: skb->priority = MWIFIEX_PRIO_VI; marvell/mwifiex/tdls.c: skb->priority = MWIFIEX_PRIO_VI; rsi/rsi_91x_core.c: skb->priority = q_num; rsi/rsi_91x_core.c: skb->priority = TID_TO_WME_AC(tid); rsi/rsi_91x_core.c: skb->priority = BE_Q; rsi/rsi_91x_core.c: skb->priority = q_num; rsi/rsi_91x_hal.c: skb->priority = VO_Q; rsi/rsi_91x_mgmt.c: skb->priority = MGMT_SOFT_Q; ti/wlcore/main.c: skb->priority = WL1271_TID_MGMT; Doesn't seem *that* excessive? Obviously there could be other cases, and I haven't looked closer at any of those... Does it matter for the drivers that don't use TXQs? -Toke
