* [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
@ 2012-06-27 16:09 Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 5:52 ` Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 11:07 ` Arend van Spriel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Luciano Coelho @ 2012-06-27 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-wireless; +Cc: coelho, arik, Eliad Peller
From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
index 709f6dd..6ac3323 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
@@ -4637,6 +4637,13 @@ out:
mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
}
+static void wlcore_op_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool drop)
+{
+ struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
+
+ wl1271_tx_flush(wl);
+}
+
static bool wl1271_tx_frames_pending(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
{
struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
@@ -4827,6 +4834,7 @@ static const struct ieee80211_ops wl1271_ops = {
.tx_frames_pending = wl1271_tx_frames_pending,
.set_bitrate_mask = wl12xx_set_bitrate_mask,
.channel_switch = wl12xx_op_channel_switch,
+ .flush = wlcore_op_flush,
CFG80211_TESTMODE_CMD(wl1271_tm_cmd)
};
--
1.7.10
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-27 16:09 [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback Luciano Coelho
@ 2012-06-28 5:52 ` Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 11:07 ` Arend van Spriel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Luciano Coelho @ 2012-06-28 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-wireless; +Cc: arik, Eliad Peller
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 19:09 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>
> implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
>
> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
> ---
Applied and pushed.
--
Luca.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-27 16:09 [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 5:52 ` Luciano Coelho
@ 2012-06-28 11:07 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-06-28 11:25 ` Eliad Peller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Arend van Spriel @ 2012-06-28 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luciano Coelho; +Cc: linux-wireless, arik, Eliad Peller
On 06/27/2012 06:09 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>
> implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
>
> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
> +static void wlcore_op_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool drop)
> +{
> + struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
> +
> + wl1271_tx_flush(wl);
> +}
> +
So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
Gr. AvS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-28 11:07 ` Arend van Spriel
@ 2012-06-28 11:25 ` Eliad Peller
2012-06-28 11:31 ` Arik Nemtsov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eliad Peller @ 2012-06-28 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend van Spriel; +Cc: Luciano Coelho, linux-wireless, arik
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 06:09 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>> From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>
>> implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>> +static void wlcore_op_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool drop)
>> +{
>> + struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
>> +
>> + wl1271_tx_flush(wl);
>> +}
>> +
>
> So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
>
yeah, good point...
i guess we'll want to add support for the drop flag as well.
Luca - you can either drop this patch, or apply it for now and i'll
send another patch later on.
thanks,
Eliad.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-28 11:25 ` Eliad Peller
@ 2012-06-28 11:31 ` Arik Nemtsov
2012-06-28 18:44 ` Arend van Spriel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Arik Nemtsov @ 2012-06-28 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eliad Peller; +Cc: Arend van Spriel, Luciano Coelho, linux-wireless
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> wrote:
>> On 06/27/2012 06:09 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>>> From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>>
>>> implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 8 ++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>>> +static void wlcore_op_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool drop)
>>> +{
>>> + struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
>>> +
>>> + wl1271_tx_flush(wl);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
>>
> yeah, good point...
> i guess we'll want to add support for the drop flag as well.
>
> Luca - you can either drop this patch, or apply it for now and i'll
> send another patch later on.
Currently we drop all the packets if we can't flush them within a
reasonable time. We always do this right now. I think that's good
enough?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-28 11:31 ` Arik Nemtsov
@ 2012-06-28 18:44 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-06-28 18:48 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Arend van Spriel @ 2012-06-28 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arik Nemtsov; +Cc: Eliad Peller, Luciano Coelho, linux-wireless, Johannes Berg
On 06/28/2012 01:31 PM, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2012 06:09 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
>>>> From: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>>>
>>>> implement the .flush() callback by simply calling wl1271_tx_flush().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/main.c
>>>> +static void wlcore_op_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool drop)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
>>>> +
>>>> + wl1271_tx_flush(wl);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
>>>
>> yeah, good point...
>> i guess we'll want to add support for the drop flag as well.
>>
>> Luca - you can either drop this patch, or apply it for now and i'll
>> send another patch later on.
>
> Currently we drop all the packets if we can't flush them within a
> reasonable time. We always do this right now. I think that's good
> enough?
>
Hard to say as I am working mostly on your side of this API. However,
the drop flag is part of the API so there is probably a reason for
having it. Johannes?
Gr. AvS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-28 18:44 ` Arend van Spriel
@ 2012-06-28 18:48 ` Johannes Berg
2012-06-29 4:07 ` Luciano Coelho
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2012-06-28 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend van Spriel
Cc: Arik Nemtsov, Eliad Peller, Luciano Coelho, linux-wireless
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 20:44 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >>> So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
> >>>
> >> yeah, good point...
> >> i guess we'll want to add support for the drop flag as well.
> >>
> >> Luca - you can either drop this patch, or apply it for now and i'll
> >> send another patch later on.
> >
> > Currently we drop all the packets if we can't flush them within a
> > reasonable time. We always do this right now. I think that's good
> > enough?
> >
>
> Hard to say as I am working mostly on your side of this API. However,
> the drop flag is part of the API so there is probably a reason for
> having it. Johannes?
The drop never actually used today... but we had plans to use it in some
cases I think.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback
2012-06-28 18:48 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2012-06-29 4:07 ` Luciano Coelho
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Luciano Coelho @ 2012-06-29 4:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg
Cc: Arend van Spriel, Arik Nemtsov, Eliad Peller, linux-wireless
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 20:48 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 20:44 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>
> > >>> So not taking the drop flag into account? Any plan to change that?
> > >>>
> > >> yeah, good point...
> > >> i guess we'll want to add support for the drop flag as well.
> > >>
> > >> Luca - you can either drop this patch, or apply it for now and i'll
> > >> send another patch later on.
> > >
> > > Currently we drop all the packets if we can't flush them within a
> > > reasonable time. We always do this right now. I think that's good
> > > enough?
> > >
> >
> > Hard to say as I am working mostly on your side of this API. However,
> > the drop flag is part of the API so there is probably a reason for
> > having it. Johannes?
>
> The drop never actually used today... but we had plans to use it in some
> cases I think.
I have just grepped the code and I also see that drop is always false as
it is.
Of course, the API specifies this drop parameter and how it should be
handled, so we should treat it too, so nothing breaks if mac80211
changes.
But, as defined in the API documentation:
* @flush: Flush all pending frames from the hardware queue, making sure
* that the hardware queues are empty. If the parameter @drop is set
* to %true, pending frames may be dropped. The callback can sleep.
Frames *may* be dropped if drop is set to true. We don't *have* to drop
them, so it should be fine to ignore it and remain true to the API
specification.
--
Luca.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-29 4:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-06-27 16:09 [PATCH] wlcore: implement .flush callback Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 5:52 ` Luciano Coelho
2012-06-28 11:07 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-06-28 11:25 ` Eliad Peller
2012-06-28 11:31 ` Arik Nemtsov
2012-06-28 18:44 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-06-28 18:48 ` Johannes Berg
2012-06-29 4:07 ` Luciano Coelho
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.