Vdev map issues.

Vdev map issues.

[Ben Greear]

Possibly I've made too many local changes and gotten confused, but this code
appears like it should be doing an |= instead of &= in ath10k_add_interface?

err_vdev_delete:
	ath10k_wmi_vdev_delete(ar, arvif->vdev_id);
	ar->free_vdev_map &= ~(1LL << arvif->vdev_id);
	list_del(&arvif->list);

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

Re: Vdev map issues.

[Michal Kazior]

On 30 April 2014 02:13, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> Possibly I've made too many local changes and gotten confused, but this code
> appears like it should be doing an |= instead of &= in ath10k_add_interface?
>
> err_vdev_delete:
>         ath10k_wmi_vdev_delete(ar, arvif->vdev_id);
>         ar->free_vdev_map &= ~(1LL << arvif->vdev_id);
>         list_del(&arvif->list);

Correct. Will you submit a patch?


Michał

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

Re: Vdev map issues.

[Ben Greear]

On 04/29/2014 11:06 PM, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 30 April 2014 02:13, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> Possibly I've made too many local changes and gotten confused, but this code
>> appears like it should be doing an |= instead of &= in ath10k_add_interface?
>>
>> err_vdev_delete:
>>         ath10k_wmi_vdev_delete(ar, arvif->vdev_id);
>>         ar->free_vdev_map &= ~(1LL << arvif->vdev_id);
>>         list_del(&arvif->list);
> 
> Correct. Will you submit a patch?

This is tangled in another patch that enables 64-bit vdev-maps,
but I will rebase and post it shortly.

Another question in the related code:  For monitor devices, we
are using bit - 1 for the monitor device ID, but we do not subtract
one when creating normal stations.  Is this on purpose?

And, instead of checking for bit == 0, why not check for
zero map before we even try the ffs call?  That should work
for __ffs64 as well, which is what I need for lots of vdevs...

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

Re: Vdev map issues.

[Ben Greear]

On 04/30/2014 10:06 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 11:06 PM, Michal Kazior wrote:
>> On 30 April 2014 02:13, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> Possibly I've made too many local changes and gotten confused, but this code
>>> appears like it should be doing an |= instead of &= in ath10k_add_interface?
>>>
>>> err_vdev_delete:
>>>         ath10k_wmi_vdev_delete(ar, arvif->vdev_id);
>>>         ar->free_vdev_map &= ~(1LL << arvif->vdev_id);
>>>         list_del(&arvif->list);
>>
>> Correct. Will you submit a patch?
> 
> This is tangled in another patch that enables 64-bit vdev-maps,
> but I will rebase and post it shortly.
> 
> Another question in the related code:  For monitor devices, we
> are using bit - 1 for the monitor device ID, but we do not subtract
> one when creating normal stations.  Is this on purpose?

Ahh, nevermind that bit - 1 question, that is a local bug I introduced I think...

Thanks,
Ben

> 
> And, instead of checking for bit == 0, why not check for
> zero map before we even try the ffs call?  That should work
> for __ffs64 as well, which is what I need for lots of vdevs...
> 
> 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