Johannes Berg <johan...@sipsolutions.net> writes: > 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 ...
Ah, sorry, I read that as "some drivers *set* skb->priority without checking"... -Toke
