From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758319Ab3DBXw1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:52:27 -0400 Received: from mail.openmoko.org ([88.198.124.205]:35794 "EHLO mail.openmoko.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758117Ab3DBXw0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:52:26 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2283 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:52:25 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:13:19 -0300 From: Werner Almesberger To: Alan Ott Cc: Alexander Smirnov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-zigbee-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linux-zigbee-devel] [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry sending failed packets Message-ID: <20130402231319.GD28141@ws> References: <1364928481-1813-1-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us> <1364928481-1813-2-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us> <515B3F78.2020301@signal11.us> <515B4D79.40805@signal11.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <515B4D79.40805@signal11.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 done like this in the first place. Just for convenience ? If we want to move towards an asynchronous interface, it could exist in parallel with the current one. That way, drivers could be migrated one by one. Having said that, the errors you get there may not be failed single transmissions on the air but some form of congestion in the driver or a problem with the device. But I don't think that's a valid reason for retrying the transmission at that level. - Werner From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry sending failed packets Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:13:19 -0300 Message-ID: <20130402231319.GD28141@ws> References: <1364928481-1813-1-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us> <1364928481-1813-2-git-send-email-alan@signal11.us> <515B3F78.2020301@signal11.us> <515B4D79.40805@signal11.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-zigbee-devel , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alan Ott Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <515B4D79.40805-yzvJWuRpmD1zbRFIqnYvSA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-zigbee-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 done like this in the first place. Just for convenience ? If we want to move towards an asynchronous interface, it could exist in parallel with the current one. That way, drivers could be migrated one by one. Having said that, the errors you get there may not be failed single transmissions on the air but some form of congestion in the driver or a problem with the device. But I don't think that's a valid reason for retrying the transmission at that level. - Werner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html