On 04/02/2013 10:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Ott
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:25:28 -0400
>
>> The workqueue in mac802154 is only needed because the current mac802154
>> xmit() function is designed to be blocking and synchronous.
>>
>> Prior to my patch (#3/6), that very same workqueue
Alan Ott wrote:
> 1. Most supported devices have only single packet output buffer, so
> blocking in the driver is the most straight-forward way to handle it.
> The alternative is to make each driver have a workqueue for xmit() (to
> lift the blocking out from atomic context). This makes each driver
From: Alan Ott
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:25:28 -0400
> The workqueue in mac802154 is only needed because the current mac802154
> xmit() function is designed to be blocking and synchronous.
>
> Prior to my patch (#3/6), that very same workqueue would actually queue
> up packets (without bound). T
On 04/02/2013 10:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Ott
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:59:37 -0400
>
>> On 04/02/2013 09:56 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Alan Ott
>>> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:24:59 -0400
>>>
I like it for a couple of reasons.
1. Most supported devices have only s
From: Alan Ott
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:59:37 -0400
> On 04/02/2013 09:56 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alan Ott
>> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:24:59 -0400
>>
>>> I like it for a couple of reasons.
>>> 1. Most supported devices have only single packet output buffer, so
>>> blocking in the driv
On 04/02/2013 09:56 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Ott
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:24:59 -0400
>
>> I like it for a couple of reasons.
>> 1. Most supported devices have only single packet output buffer, so
>> blocking in the driver is the most straight-forward way to handle it.
>> The altern
From: Alan Ott
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:24:59 -0400
> I like it for a couple of reasons.
> 1. Most supported devices have only single packet output buffer, so
> blocking in the driver is the most straight-forward way to handle it.
> The alternative is to make each driver have a workqueue for xmi
On 04/02/2013 07:13 PM, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Alan Ott wrote:
>> it's now my opinion that we should _not_ try to retransmit at
>> all in mac802154/tx.c.
> I think the currently blocking workqueue design is ugly and
> quite contrary to how most the rest of the stack works. So
> anything that k
Alan Ott wrote:
> it's now my opinion that we should _not_ try to retransmit at
> all in mac802154/tx.c.
I think the currently blocking workqueue design is ugly and
quite contrary to how most the rest of the stack works. So
anything that kills it has my blessing :-)
I do wonder though why it was
9 matches
Mail list logo
