On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 13:07 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > 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...
That's assignments. For assignments, I guess you'd have to look at net/mac80211/. It's not that excessive either, but it's not in all places trivial to determine ... Whatever, I'll just try, give me a minute :) > Does it matter for the drivers that don't use TXQs? Probably. johannes
