* Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap?
@ 2016-03-29 21:30 Ben Greear
2016-03-30 10:07 ` Michal Kazior
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2016-03-29 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ath10k
Can a single peer object really have more than one ID?
Is this trying to deal with shared peer objects, perhaps?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap?
2016-03-29 21:30 Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap? Ben Greear
@ 2016-03-30 10:07 ` Michal Kazior
2016-03-30 15:42 ` Ben Greear
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michal Kazior @ 2016-03-30 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: ath10k
On 29 March 2016 at 23:30, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> Can a single peer object really have more than one ID?
When you install keys you typically get more ids via htt-peer-map
event. I think there were some other cases as well..
> Is this trying to deal with shared peer objects, perhaps?
This was developed very long ago when peer-id mapping wasn't really
well understood. Perhaps we could make do without peer id map now?
i.e. only care about the first htt-peer-map per peer address?
Michal
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap?
2016-03-30 10:07 ` Michal Kazior
@ 2016-03-30 15:42 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-31 6:37 ` Michal Kazior
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2016-03-30 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Kazior; +Cc: ath10k
On 03/30/2016 03:07 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 29 March 2016 at 23:30, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> Can a single peer object really have more than one ID?
>
> When you install keys you typically get more ids via htt-peer-map
> event. I think there were some other cases as well..
>
>
>> Is this trying to deal with shared peer objects, perhaps?
>
> This was developed very long ago when peer-id mapping wasn't really
> well understood. Perhaps we could make do without peer id map now?
> i.e. only care about the first htt-peer-map per peer address?
The 10.4.3 firmware can probably still do shared peers, though not sure if it actually
happens in practice, and I'm not sure it that would cause this bitmap to
ever have more than one bit set anyway.
It just struck me as strange, mainly, and since the radio struct has
a peer array indexed by the peer-id, then it would seem that we should never
have duplicate bits set in any of the peer objects. And, if that is correct,
then the bitmap or similar should probably be in the radio struct instead of
in peer objects.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap?
2016-03-30 15:42 ` Ben Greear
@ 2016-03-31 6:37 ` Michal Kazior
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michal Kazior @ 2016-03-31 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: ath10k
On 30 March 2016 at 17:42, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 03/30/2016 03:07 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
>>
>> On 29 March 2016 at 23:30, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can a single peer object really have more than one ID?
>>
>>
>> When you install keys you typically get more ids via htt-peer-map
>> event. I think there were some other cases as well..
>>
>>
>>> Is this trying to deal with shared peer objects, perhaps?
>>
>>
>> This was developed very long ago when peer-id mapping wasn't really
>> well understood. Perhaps we could make do without peer id map now?
>> i.e. only care about the first htt-peer-map per peer address?
>
>
> The 10.4.3 firmware can probably still do shared peers, though not sure if
> it actually
> happens in practice, and I'm not sure it that would cause this bitmap to
> ever have more than one bit set anyway.
>
> It just struck me as strange, mainly, and since the radio struct has
> a peer array indexed by the peer-id, then it would seem that we should never
> have duplicate bits set in any of the peer objects. And, if that is
> correct,
> then the bitmap or similar should probably be in the radio struct instead of
> in peer objects.
Ah, good point. The peer_map[] was introduced recently to allow quick
peer_id -> peer/station translation for pull-push purposes. So yes -
there some duplication going on now. I guess the bitmap could go away.
Michał
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-03-31 6:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-03-29 21:30 Why is peer->peer_ids a bitmap? Ben Greear
2016-03-30 10:07 ` Michal Kazior
2016-03-30 15:42 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-31 6:37 ` Michal Kazior
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.