* [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
[not found] <cover.1535567864.git.lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
@ 2018-08-29 19:03 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-29 19:05 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-29 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: johannes; +Cc: linux-wireless, nbd, sara.sharon
Do not try to aggregate packets in a A-MSDU frame and add A-MSDU header
on the first packet if max_tx_fragments or max_amsdu_subframes are
set to one
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
---
Changes since v1:
- rebased on top of mac80211 master branch
- removed ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad chunk
---
net/mac80211/tx.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mac80211/tx.c b/net/mac80211/tx.c
index 6a362b2882d3..75646e3fb3d9 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/tx.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -3213,9 +3213,6 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
if (skb->len + head->len > max_amsdu_len)
goto out;
- if (!ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head(sdata, fast_tx, head))
- goto out;
-
nfrags = 1 + skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
nfrags += 1 + skb_shinfo(head)->nr_frags;
frag_tail = &skb_shinfo(head)->frag_list;
@@ -3231,6 +3228,9 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
if (max_frags && nfrags > max_frags)
goto out;
+ if (!ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head(sdata, fast_tx, head))
+ goto out;
+
/*
* Pad out the previous subframe to a multiple of 4 by adding the
* padding to the next one, that's being added. Note that head->len
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-29 19:03 ` [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-29 19:05 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-29 19:12 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-29 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless, nbd, sara.sharon
On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 21:03 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Do not try to aggregate packets in a A-MSDU frame and add A-MSDU header
> on the first packet if max_tx_fragments or max_amsdu_subframes are
> set to one
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - rebased on top of mac80211 master branch
> - removed ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad chunk
>
Don't you still have to account for the changed header length if the
second one fails or something?
You said you wanted to account for the pad bytes - which now aren't
there - but didn't that also take the changed header of the first
subframe into account?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-29 19:05 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-29 19:12 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
[not found] ` <1535570007.5215.34.camel@sipsolutions.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-29 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless, Felix Fietkau, Sara Sharon
>
> On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 21:03 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Do not try to aggregate packets in a A-MSDU frame and add A-MSDU header
> > on the first packet if max_tx_fragments or max_amsdu_subframes are
> > set to one
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> > - rebased on top of mac80211 master branch
> > - removed ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad chunk
> >
> Don't you still have to account for the changed header length if the
> second one fails or something?
>
That has been fixed by Sara's patch since now we add the pad directly
on the head of the
subsequent subframes (not to the tail of the first one). Am I missing something?
Regards,
Lorenzo
> You said you wanted to account for the pad bytes - which now aren't
> there - but didn't that also take the changed header of the first
> subframe into account?
>
> johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
[not found] ` <1535570007.5215.34.camel@sipsolutions.net>
@ 2018-08-29 19:30 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:03 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-29 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:13 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 21:12 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>
> > That has been fixed by Sara's patch since now we add the pad directly
> > on the head of the
> > subsequent subframes (not to the tail of the first one). Am I missing something?
>
> As far as the pad is concerned, yes, but I think the header length also
> changes?
Ops, maybe I got your point:
ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() in ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head() can
expand the headroom on the first frame
but if ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() on the second one fails, we do
not take into account the extra len added on the
first subframe. Is that what you mean?
>
> I'm too tired now - will think about it again tomorrow.
>
ack :)
Regards,
Lorenzo
> johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-29 19:30 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-30 8:03 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 8:31 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
First of all, I applied your patch with now, but changed the commit
message. I hope it still makes sense.
> Ops, maybe I got your point:
> ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() in ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head() can
> expand the headroom on the first frame
Right.
> but if ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() on the second one fails, we do
> not take into account the extra len added on the
> first subframe. Is that what you mean?
Yes, that's what I was thinking of, but you described it much better
than me :)
If this needs to be addressed, please send a separate patch.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 8:03 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-30 8:31 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:39 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-30 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless
> First of all, I applied your patch with now, but changed the commit
> message. I hope it still makes sense.
Thx, definitely better than mine :)
>
> > Ops, maybe I got your point:
> > ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() in ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head() can
> > expand the headroom on the first frame
>
> Right.
>
> > but if ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad() on the second one fails, we do
> > not take into account the extra len added on the
> > first subframe. Is that what you mean?
>
> Yes, that's what I was thinking of, but you described it much better
> than me :)
>
> If this needs to be addressed, please send a separate patch.
Reviewing the code I guess it is not necessary since pskb_expand_head routine
does not modify head->len (or skb->len). Packet len (if we consider padding)
is only modified in:
memset(skb_push(skb, pad), 0, pad);
and if we hit that point, we will account new skb->len in flow backlog. Do you
agree?
Looking at the code maybe I spotted another issue, I guess there is an
off-by-one issue in 'n' estimation since it does not take into account
the first frame. We hit the line:
while (*frag_tail) {
}
starting from the second subframe, but if the head does not have packet in the
fraglist we will end up having n = 1, while it is actually the second frame.
Does n count just subsequent frames or also the first one?
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 8:31 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-30 8:39 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 8:50 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:31 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Reviewing the code I guess it is not necessary since pskb_expand_head routine
> does not modify head->len (or skb->len).
True.
> Packet len (if we consider padding) is only modified in:
>
> memset(skb_push(skb, pad), 0, pad);
>
> and if we hit that point, we will account new skb->len in flow backlog. Do you
> agree?
Right, but that's the *pad*. I was thinking about the header conversion.
Let's say you decided to add the second frame to the A-MSDU, at which
point the first one isn't really an A-MSDU yet. So we get to:
if (!ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head(sdata, fast_tx, head))
which changes the header of "head" to be 14 bytes longer:
skb_push(skb, sizeof(*amsdu_hdr));
But now let's say we get a failure here when reallocating the second
subframe:
if (!ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad(local, skb, sizeof(rfc1042_header) +
2 + pad))
goto out;
Now we have changed "head", which is on the FQ, but we haven't changed
the FQ accounting. So I *think* we still need this:
--- a/net/mac80211/tx.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
@@ -3239,7 +3239,7 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
if (!ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad(local, skb, sizeof(rfc1042_header) +
2 + pad))
- goto out;
+ goto out_recalc;
ret = true;
data = skb_push(skb, ETH_ALEN + 2);
@@ -3256,11 +3256,13 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
head->data_len += skb->len;
*frag_tail = skb;
- flow->backlog += head->len - orig_len;
- tin->backlog_bytes += head->len - orig_len;
-
- fq_recalc_backlog(fq, tin, flow);
+out_recalc:
+ if (head->len != orig_len) {
+ flow->backlog += head->len - orig_len;
+ tin->backlog_bytes += head->len - orig_len;
+ fq_recalc_backlog(fq, tin, flow);
+ }
out:
spin_unlock_bh(&fq->lock);
> Looking at the code maybe I spotted another issue, I guess there is an
> off-by-one issue in 'n' estimation since it does not take into account
> the first frame. We hit the line:
>
> while (*frag_tail) {
> }
>
> starting from the second subframe, but if the head does not have packet in the
> fraglist we will end up having n = 1, while it is actually the second frame.
Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
So I think this is right?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 8:39 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-30 8:50 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:53 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-30 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless
> On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:31 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>
> > Reviewing the code I guess it is not necessary since pskb_expand_head routine
> > does not modify head->len (or skb->len).
>
> True.
>
> > Packet len (if we consider padding) is only modified in:
> >
> > memset(skb_push(skb, pad), 0, pad);
> >
> > and if we hit that point, we will account new skb->len in flow backlog. Do you
> > agree?
>
> Right, but that's the *pad*. I was thinking about the header conversion.
>
> Let's say you decided to add the second frame to the A-MSDU, at which
> point the first one isn't really an A-MSDU yet. So we get to:
>
> if (!ieee80211_amsdu_prepare_head(sdata, fast_tx, head))
>
> which changes the header of "head" to be 14 bytes longer:
>
> skb_push(skb, sizeof(*amsdu_hdr));
>
> But now let's say we get a failure here when reallocating the second
> subframe:
>
> if (!ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad(local, skb, sizeof(rfc1042_header) +
> 2 + pad))
> goto out;
>
> Now we have changed "head", which is on the FQ, but we haven't changed
> the FQ accounting. So I *think* we still need this:
>
> --- a/net/mac80211/tx.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/tx.c
> @@ -3239,7 +3239,7 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>
> if (!ieee80211_amsdu_realloc_pad(local, skb, sizeof(rfc1042_header) +
> 2 + pad))
> - goto out;
> + goto out_recalc;
>
> ret = true;
> data = skb_push(skb, ETH_ALEN + 2);
> @@ -3256,11 +3256,13 @@ static bool ieee80211_amsdu_aggregate(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> head->data_len += skb->len;
> *frag_tail = skb;
>
> - flow->backlog += head->len - orig_len;
> - tin->backlog_bytes += head->len - orig_len;
> -
> - fq_recalc_backlog(fq, tin, flow);
> +out_recalc:
> + if (head->len != orig_len) {
> + flow->backlog += head->len - orig_len;
> + tin->backlog_bytes += head->len - orig_len;
>
> + fq_recalc_backlog(fq, tin, flow);
> + }
> out:
> spin_unlock_bh(&fq->lock);
>
ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
>
>
> > Looking at the code maybe I spotted another issue, I guess there is an
> > off-by-one issue in 'n' estimation since it does not take into account
> > the first frame. We hit the line:
> >
> > while (*frag_tail) {
> > }
> >
> > starting from the second subframe, but if the head does not have packet in the
> > fraglist we will end up having n = 1, while it is actually the second frame.
>
> Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
>
> So I think this is right?
yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> johannes
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 8:50 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-30 8:53 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:00 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>
> ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out.
> > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> > subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
> >
> > So I think this is right?
>
> yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
> 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1
doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get
here ... good point, care to send a patch?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 8:53 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-30 9:00 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 9:03 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-30 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless
> On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >
> > ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
>
> I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out.
Sound good, thx :)
>
> > > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> > > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> > > subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
> > >
> > > So I think this is right?
> >
> > yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
> > 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
>
> Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1
> doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get
> here ... good point, care to send a patch?
>
ack, I will send a patch for it
Regards,
Lorenzo
> johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 9:00 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-30 9:03 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:06 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:00 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > >
> > > ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
> >
> > I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out.
>
> Sound good, thx :)
>
> >
> > > > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> > > > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> > > > subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
> > > >
> > > > So I think this is right?
> > >
> > > yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
> > > 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
> >
> > Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1
> > doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get
> > here ... good point, care to send a patch?
> >
>
> ack, I will send a patch for it
The same is true for nfrags, btw, no?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 9:03 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-30 9:06 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:00 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
> > >
> > > I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out.
> >
> > Sound good, thx :)
> >
> > >
> > > > > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> > > > > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> > > > > subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think this is right?
> > > >
> > > > yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
> > > > 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
> > >
> > > Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1
> > > doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get
> > > here ... good point, care to send a patch?
> > >
> >
> > ack, I will send a patch for it
>
> The same is true for nfrags, btw, no?
No, it's not, just misread the code.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 9:03 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:06 ` Johannes Berg
@ 2018-08-30 9:07 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Johannes Berg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Bianconi @ 2018-08-30 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Aug 30, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:00 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:50 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ack, I agree. Do you want I send a patch to fix it?
> > >
> > > I have it written now, I'll just commit & send it out.
> >
> > Sound good, thx :)
> >
> > >
> > > > > Hmm, not sure I follow? "head" is the A-MSDU, containing the A-MSDU
> > > > > header and the first subframe in skb->data (and/or frags), with the
> > > > > subframes 2..N in the fraglist.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think this is right?
> > > >
> > > > yep, correct. But when we are analyzing the second subframe what is the correct value for 'n'?
> > > > 1 or 2? At the moment I guess it is set to 1 if frag_tail is NULL for head.
> > >
> > > Ah. I guess you're right. So basically setting max_subframes to 1
> > > doesn't avoid A-MSDUs completely, since n will still be 1 when we get
> > > here ... good point, care to send a patch?
> > >
> >
> > ack, I will send a patch for it
>
> The same is true for nfrags, btw, no?
I do not think so since for nfrags we have:
nfrags = 1 + skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
nfrags += 1 + skb_shinfo(head)->nr_frags;
and even if frag_tail is NULL we will have nfrags = 2.
Agree?
Lorenzo
>
> johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
@ 2018-08-30 9:07 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2018-08-30 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Bianconi; +Cc: linux-wireless
On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 11:07 +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>
> I do not think so since for nfrags we have:
> nfrags = 1 + skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
> nfrags += 1 + skb_shinfo(head)->nr_frags;
>
> and even if frag_tail is NULL we will have nfrags = 2.
>
> Agree?
Yeah, I misread those two lines.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-08-30 13:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1535567864.git.lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
2018-08-29 19:03 ` [PATCH v2] mac80211: do not aggregate frames if max_frags is set to one Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-29 19:05 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-29 19:12 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
[not found] ` <1535570007.5215.34.camel@sipsolutions.net>
2018-08-29 19:30 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:03 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 8:31 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:39 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 8:50 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 8:53 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:00 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 9:03 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:06 ` Johannes Berg
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-08-30 9:07 ` Johannes Berg
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.